Case Name: Statkawicz, Respondent, vs. Laguna, Appellant
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1914-01-13
Citations: 155 Wis. 304
Docket Number: 
Parties: Statkawicz, Respondent, vs. Laguna, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 155
Pages: 304–306

Head Matter:
Statkawicz, Respondent, vs. Laguna, Appellant.
October 9, 1913
January 13, 1914.
Appeal: Bill of exceptions: Affirmance.
In the absence of a hill of exceptions embodying specific exceptions to the findings of fact, this court cannot determine that the findings are unwarranted by the evidence or that a new trial should have been granted because of newly discovered evidence; hence a judgment supported by the pleadings and findings must be affirmed.
Appeal from a judgment of tlie municipal court of Racine county: Wal SailediNG, Je., Judge.
Affirmed.
Action to recover on a money demand. The trial of the cause resulted in findings in favor of plaintiff. A motion was made on newly discovered evidence for a new trial which was denied. Judgment was rendered in plaintiff’s favor for $412.22 damages and costs, in accordance with the findings. An exception to the judgment, signed by the judge and denominated a bill of exceptions, was filed and a separate such paper was filed as to the order denying the motion for a new trial. There were no specific exceptions filed to the findings of fact. There was no bill of exceptions settled.
Eor the appellant the cause was submitted on the brief of Tullar <& Lochney, Stahl & LeWald, and Samuel G. Ham-blen.
Eor the respondent there was a brief by Simmons & Walker, and oral argument by J. B. Simmons.

Opinion:
The following opinion was filed October 28, 1913:
MaRshaui,, J.
It is not contended but wliat tlie pleadings and findings support, the judgment. Without a bill of exceptions properly settle^, we are unable to officially know whether the findings are unwarranted by the evidence or whether there was newly discovered evidence, which, in view of the other evidence, entitled appellant to á retrial. Therefore, the judgment must be affirmed.
By ihe Gourt. — So ordered.