Case Name: Wisconsin Trust Company and another, Executors, etc., Respondents, vs. Cousins, Commissioner of Banking, imp., Appellant
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1920-11-16
Citations: 172 Wis. 511
Docket Number: 
Parties: Wisconsin Trust Company and another, Executors, etc., Respondents, vs. Cousins, Commissioner of Banking, imp., Appellant.
Judges: Siebecker, C. J., and Rosenberry, J., dissent.
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 172
Pages: 511–512

Head Matter:
Wisconsin Trust Company and another, Executors, etc., Respondents, vs. Cousins, Commissioner of Banking, imp., Appellant.
March 13
November 16, 1920.
Wisconsin Trust Co. v. Cousins, ante, p. 486, and Sharpe v. Cousins, ante, p. 509, followed.
Appeal from a part of a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee county. Oscar M. Fritz, Circuit Judge.
Reversed and modified.
Included in the judgment in the court below was $1,400 damages, together with interest, arising out of an improvident investment made by the Trust Company of $4,000 on November 1, 1907, in one of the Clark Realty Company loans.
A claim was filed in the liquidation proceedings but no mention made therein of this particular item, and the claim was disallowed and notice thereof given. Summons was served in March, 1915, and similar proceedings taken as in the preceding cases, and a verified complaint containing this particular item was served' February 4, 1919!
For the appellant there was a brief by Flanders, Faivsetf & Smart, and oral argument by Charles E. Monroe, all of Milwaukee.
For the respondents there was a brief by Lines, Spooner & Quarles of Milwaukee, and oral argument by George Lines.

Opinion:
The following opinion was filed July 17, 1920:
Esci-iweiler, J.
The same situation is presented on this appeal as in the preceding case of Julia C. Sharpe against the same defendant, and the ruling there and in the preceding case of Wisconsin Trust Co. v. Cousins, ante, p. 486, 179 N. W. 801, must control.
There having been no claim for this particular item filed with the commissioner of banking, it could not be properly interposed in the complaint in this action. For that reason the portion of the judgment appealed from must be reversed.
By the Court. — So much of the judgment as is appealed from is reversed, and the action remanded with directions to modify the judgment in accordance herewith.
Siebecker, C. J., and Rosenberry, J., dissent.
A motion for a rehearing was denied, with $25 costs, on November 16, 1920.