Case Name: Ehlert vs. Hollander
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1877-08
Citations: 43 Wis. 251
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ehlert vs. Hollander.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 43
Pages: 251–252

Head Matter:
Ehlert vs. Hollander.
Reversal of judgment.
A judgment mil not be reversed upon, immaterial exceptions; nor will it be reversed for insufficiency of evidence to sustain the verdict, where the bill of exceptions is not certified to contain all the evidence.
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County.
Action upon a promissory note. The note was given to the plaintiff’ for a loan of money, and was signed in the firm name, “A. Suhr & Co.,” by the partner Suhr, since deceased. It is undisputed that the plaintiff loaned the money for which the note was given, either to the firm or to Suhr. The testimony of the plaintiff tends to show that the loan was to the firm; that of the defendant tends to show that the loan was to Suhr individually, and that the firm had no interest in it. The circuit judge instructed the jury that if the money was borrowed for the use of the firm, and was used by the firm, the defendant is liable on the note; otherwise he is not so liable; leaving it for the jury to determine whether the firm or Suhr was the borrower.
The jury found for the plaintiff. A motion to set aside the verdict, on the ground that it was contrary to law and the evidence, was denied, and judgment entered for the plaintiff pursuant to the verdict, for the amount due on the note by its terms. The defendant appealed from the judgment.
The appeal was submitted for the appellant on the brief of James Hiohcoca, and argued for the respondent by Mr. F. W. Cotzhausen, with the brief of Cotzhausen, Smith, Sylvester & Scheiber.

Opinion:
Lyon, J.
A few exceptions were taken on the trial to rulings upon objections to the admission of testimony, hut they are quite unimportant. Besides these, the only exception preserved in the record is to the order denying the motion for a new trial. The bill of exceptions is not certified to contain all of the testimony; and because it is not so certified, the judgment cannot be disturbed for the alleged want of sufficient evidence to support the verdict. And because there are no material exceptions, it cannot be disturbed for any alleged error in the rulings of the court. So far as we can perceive from the record before us, the motion for a new trial was properly denied. The record disclosing no error which can be reviewed by this court, we must necessarily affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.