Case ID: wis_240/html/0500-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Wickhem, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Tollander, Respondent, vs. Bonneville, Appellant. [Two cases.]
    
      April 10
    
    May 5, 1942.
    
    
      For the appellant there was a brief by Arthur I. Ringham of Grantsburg and Doar & Knowles of New Richmond, and oral argument by W. T. Doar.
    
    For the respondents the cause was submitted on the brief of Clive J. Strang of Grantsburg and Nelton & McGinnis of Balsam Lake.
   Wickhem, J.

There is no bill of exceptions in this case, and the sole question is whether the trial court had the power to increase the damages in favor of plaintiffs, without providing any option to the defendant.

The contention is that where a verdict has been found to be inadequate and the award raised to the lowest sum which a properly instructed jury would probably render, defendant should be given an option to take a new trial or to pay the increased sum, and that this is necessary to protect his right to a jury trial.

The case of Risch v. Lawhead, 211 Wis. 270, 248 N. W. 127, involved the precise question raised by defendant here, and the ruling was squarely contrary to defendant’s contention. The whole matter was elaborately argued and considered there, and we are not disposed to depart from the conclusions reached.

By the Court. — Judgments affirmed.