Case ID: wis_49/html/0659-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "OetoN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Woodlock vs. Combs.
    
      May 29
    
    
      June 23, 1880.
    
    Bill os’ Exceptions. Presumptions as to rulings and verdict, where evidence not all given.
    
    Where the bill of exceptions is not shown (by certificate of the judge or stipulation of the parties) to contain all the evidence given on the trial, exceptions to a refusal of a compulsory nonsuit, or to instructions which might have been warranted by the evidence, are of no avail; and the jury will be presumed to have found, upon sufficient evidence, every alleged fact necessary to sustain their general verdict.
    APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Lincoln County.
    Action to recover a certain sum alleged to be due plaintiff from defendant, for service rendered, labor performed, money advanced and indebtedness incurred, by the former for the latter, at his request. At the close of plaintiff’s evidence, defendant moved for a nonsuit, on the ground that such evidence showed a contract, not with defendant as alleged, but with one Sailes as a partner of defendant, who was therefore jointly liable with the latter and a necessary party to the suit; but this motion was denied. Defendant excepted to the order denying such motion, and also to certain portions of the charge. Plaintiff had a verdict; a new trial was refused; and defendant appealed from a judgment on the verdict.
    Eor the appellant there was a brief by O’Neill c& Eldred, and oral argument by Mr. Eld/red.
    
    For the respondent there was a brief by Van JR. 'Willard, his attorney, with Silverthorn <& Hurley, of counsel, and oral argument by Mr. Hurley.
    
   OetoN, J.

There is neither a certificate of the judge before whom this case was tried, nor stipulation of the parties, that the bill of exceptions contains all of the evidence given on the trial; and therefore the exceptions taken to the refusal of the court to grant a nonsuit, or to the instructions given to the jury, are of no avail, and cannot be considered by this court. Paine v. Smith, 32 Wis., 335. For the same reason, the jury must be presumed to have found upon sufficient evidence, that the services were rendered upon the contract, and that such contract was made with the plaintiff, and that it was performed by the plaintiff, as alleged in the complaint, as well as every other fact necessary to the plaintiff’s recovery in the case. Eaton et al. v. Woolly, 28 Wis., 628.

No error is apparent from the record as made.

By the Court. — The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed, with costs.