Case Name: Klotz, Appellant, vs. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Company, Respondent
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1911-01-10
Citations: 144 Wis. 384
Docket Number: 
Parties: Klotz, Appellant, vs. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Company, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 144
Pages: 384–385

Head Matter:
Klotz, Appellant, vs. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Company, Respondent.
December 6, 1910 —
January 10, 1911.
Appeal: Review: Exceptions: Record.
An order directing a verdict cannot be reviewed on appeal from' tbe judgment unless exception to such order was taken at tbe' trial.
Appeal from a judgment of tbe circuit court for Milwaukee-county: OkeeN T. Williamis, Circuit Judge.
Affirmed.
This action was brought to recover for personal injuries. Tbe negligence charged is tbat tbe motorman so unskilfully and negligently managed tbe car of tbe defendant as to strike' tbe rear wheel of tbe vehicle in which tbe plaintiff was driving, throwing her forward upon tbe dashboard and thereby causing-tbe injury. Tbe answer is substantially a general denial. Tbe issues involved are tbe negligence of tbe defendant, contributory negligence of tbe plaintiff, and tbe amount of damages. At tbe close of tbe evidence tbe court directed a verdict for tbe defendant on its motion. No objection was made to this motion on tbe part of tbe plaintiff, and no exception taken to the order granting it at the time it was granted or during the trial. The bill of exceptions does not show any exception, but it seems that after the trial an exception was filed which appears in the record and which it is stipulated may be treated as an exception after trial. Judgment was entered dismissing the plaintiffs complaint with costs, from which this appeal was taken.
Harry M. Silbar, for the appellant.
Eor the respondent there was a brief by Van Byke, Bose-crantz, Shaw & Van Dyke, and oral argument by James B. Shav>.

Opinion:
NeewiN, J.
An order directing a verdict cannot be reviewed in the absence of an exception to such order. Miller v. Kenosha E. R. Co. 135 Wis. 68, 71, 115 N. W. 355; Beebe v. M., St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co. 137 Wis. 269, 118 N. W. 108; Holum v. C., M. & St. P. R. Co. 80 Wis. 299, 50 N. W. 99. That is the only order attempted to be reviewed here. No exception was filed in the instant case until after trial, and such exception is not sufficient. Jenks v. State, 17 Wis. 665; Firmeis v. State, 61 Wis. 140, 20 N. W. 663; Adams v. McKay, 63 Wis. 404, 23 N. W. 575. It follows that we cannot review the order directing a verdict.
By the Gourt. — The judgment of the court below is affirmed.