Case ID: wis_24/html/0483-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Dixon, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Zimmerman vs. Turner and another.
    
      Only one writ of error to one judgment.
    
    Where, on a writ of error, the judgment has been affirmed, plaintiff in error cannot have a new bill of exceptions settled, so as to present a question not presented by the former, and sue out a new writ.
    EBROE to the Circuit Court for Ozaukee County.
    The action below was ejectment by Zimmerman. The cause was brought to this court at the September term, 1867, on a bill of exceptions, from which it appeared that a deed to the plaintiff from the state and county, executed by the clerk of the board of supervisors of said county, and sealed with his official seal, was offered in evidence, but ruled out because not sealed with his private seal. It did not appear, however, that this was a tax deed; and this court therefore affirmed the judgment of dismissal rendered by the court below, without considering the question whether a tax deed of the same date would have required the private seal of the clerk. 22 Wis. 370. The manner in which the cause again came to this court,- on a second writ of error, will appear from the opinion.
    
      Geo. W. Foster, for plaintiff in error.
    
      W. A. Pors, for defendants in error.
   Dixon, C. J.

Counsel for the defendants in error object, that this is a second writ of error sued out upon the same judgment, which judgment was affirmed by this court upon the former writ, and therefore that this writ will not lie, but should be dismissed. An inspection of the records now in this court shows that the objection is well founded. This is a writ of error to the same judgment which was affirmed by this court in Zimmerman v. Turner and another, 22 Wis. 370. After the judgment was there affirmed, and the cause re-' mancled, the plaintiff in error procured the bill of exceptions to be resettled, or amended, so as to show that the deed in question was a tax deed, and then sued ont this writ of error for the purpose of reviewing a question not presented in the former one by reason of the imperfect character of the bill. It requires no argument, or citation of authorities, to show that a judgment of this court cannot be thus avoided or set aside, and that a second writ of error cannot, under such circumstances, be issued. The writ of error must be dismissed.

By the Court. —Writ dismissed.