Case Name: Dow and others, Appellants, vs. Deissner, imp., Respondent
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1900-02-02
Citations: 105 Wis. 385
Docket Number: 
Parties: Dow and others, Appellants, vs. Deissner, imp., Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 105
Pages: 385–391

Head Matter:
Dow and others, Appellants, vs. Deissner, imp., Respondent.
November 17, 1899
February 2, 1900.
Pleading: Demurrer ore terms: Appeal: Bill of exceptions: Conversion.
1. The determination on a demurrer ore tenus, when entered in the form of a judgment dismissing the complaint, is reviewable on appeal without an exception or a bill of exceptions. Mandelert v. Superior C. L. Co. 104 Wis. 433, distinguished.
2. A complaint alleging that defendants, who were liable upon a note-as maker and indorser, respectively, the former being insolvent, entered into an arrangement whereby said insolvent maker was to purchase goods from plaintiffs on credit, and turn them over to the indorser, who was to sell them to an innocent purchaser and use so much of the proceeds as might be necessary to take up said note, and pay the balance to the insolvent maker, who was thereupon to-make a voluntary assignment for the benefit of creditors: that defendants successfully carried out such arrangement; and that plaintiffs, becoming aware of the fraud, elected to rescind the sale for such fraud and sue the defendants 'for the value of the property so converted, states a good cause of action.
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Wauke-sha county: James J. Dick, Circuit Judge.
Reversed.
The cause was submitted for the appellants on the brief of OUn c& Butler, and for the respondent on that of Ryan <& Merton.

Opinion:
The following opinion was filed November 24, 1899:
Cassoday, C. J.
This is an action to recover the value of a car load of flour obtained by the defendants, Dwinnell and. Deissner, by falsely and fraudulently colluding to defraud the plaintiffs, and by making false representations to the-plaintiffs, and upon which they relied. The defendants appear to have separately answered. There is no bill of exceptions. The appeal is from the judgment, which recites that the complaint was dismissed on demurrer oto tenus, interposed by the defendant Deissner. We have just held that the sustaining of a demurrer ore tenus is nothing more than a ruling of the court in sustaining an objection to evidence offered by the appellants upon the trial. Mandelert v. Superior C. L. Co. 104 Wis. 423. To review such ruling, there must, be an exception to the same embodied in the record. Williams v. Holmes, 7 Wis. 168; Tubbs v. Doll, 15 Wis. 640; Cornell v. Davis, 16 Wis. 686; Keller v. Gilman, 96 Wis. 445. It is not "an intermediate order or determination of the court below,"" within the meaning of see. 3070, Stats. 1898. We are not at liberty to depart from the rule of practice thus established.
By the Court-.— The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.