Case Name: MARY WEEKS by her next friend, HOLLAND WEEKS, Respondent, vs. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. SIX, of the Town of Hampden, Appellant
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1859-06
Citations: 8 Wis. 166
Docket Number: 
Parties: MARY WEEKS by her next friend, HOLLAND WEEKS, Respondent, vs. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. SIX, of the Town of Hampden, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 8
Pages: 166–167

Head Matter:
MARY WEEKS by her next friend, HOLLAND WEEKS, Respondent, vs. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. SIX, of the Town of Hampden, Appellant.
APPEAL PROM CIRCUIT COURT, COLUMBIA COUNTY.
If a party is dissatisfied with the ruling of the court upon any point not part of the record of the judgment, he should take his exceptions to the ruling so that the court can review the same, otherwise they will not disturb the ruling of the court below.
This was an action commenced by Mary Weeks by her next friend, Holland Weeks, against School District No. 6, in the town of Hampden, before a justice of the peace in the county of Columbia; and in which a judgment was obtained in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant, July 22, 1858, for $100 damages and $13.96 costs. On the 7th of August, 1858, the defendant paid up the costs, together with one dollar for making a return; and on the 11th August served the notice of appeal as follows :
Take notice that the above defendant, School District No. Six, of the town of Hampden, appeals from the judgment in the above entitled action, rendered on the 22d day of July, A. D. 1858, upon the following grounds:
1st. The court erroneously decided that it was not competent to prove that the plaintiff had failed to discharge her duties as a teacher, and erroneously decided a motion made by the defendant to be allowed to prove plaintiff’s neglect of duty.
2d. The court erred in ruling that the Town Superintendent has power to discharge a teacher for neglect of duty as teacher, and that the District Board have not that power.
3d. The court erroneously gave judgment for the plaintiff, when it should have been given for defendant, the plaintiff having violated her contract with the District Board and having lost all right under that contract.
An undertaking, approved by the justice, to stay execution was also at the same time filed with the justice, reciting that the defendant had appealed to the circuit court.
A return of the proceedings and judgment was made to the Columbia circuit court, on the 31st of August.
Ten days before the October term, 1858, of the circuit court, the plaintiff, by G-. W. Hazelton, served upon the defendant notice of a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the notice did not state to what court the appeal was taken, or that it was taken to any court.
Which motion coming on to be heard on the first day of said term, the court did order that said motion be sustained and said appeal be dismissed for the reason, that the notice thereof omitted to state to what court the appeal was taken.
G. W. Hazelton, for the respondent
Mvah Stewart, for the appellant.

Opinion:
By the Court,
Cole, J.
Upon looking into the record and papers in this case we. do not find that any exceptions were taken and signed, to the order of the circuit court dismissing the appeal, and we. cannot therefore, without a violation of familiar and long established rules of practice, look into that order for the purpose of determining whether it is correct or not. If a party is dissatisfied with the ruling of the court below, upon any point he should take his exceptions to such ruling and have them signed so that this court can review them. This not having been done in the present case, we must affirm the order of the circuit court with costs.