Case Name: HARVEY HAYS and ROBERT T. CURTISS, Plaintiffs in Error, vs. JOHN E. KENDALL, Defendant in Error
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1856
Citations: 5 Wis. 132
Docket Number: 
Parties: HARVEY HAYS and ROBERT T. CURTISS, Plaintiffs in Error, vs. JOHN E. KENDALL, Defendant in Error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 132–133

Head Matter:
HARVEY HAYS and ROBERT T. CURTISS, Plaintiffs in Error, vs. JOHN E. KENDALL, Defendant in Error.
ERROR TO DANE OIRODIT COURT.
The Supreme Court, on error, cannot take notice of any defect or insufficiency in the evidence produced on the trial unless the same is brought to the record by bill of exceptions.
ACTION of assumpsit, commenced by tbe defendant in error against tbe plaintiffs in error, by service of declaration and rule, under tbe statute. Tbe declaration was in the common counts, against tbe maker and indorser of tbe note, with a copy of tbe note and indorsement thereon, and served with tbe declaration. Afterwards tbe defendants below, now plaintiffs in error, appeared and filed their plea of tbe general issue, and afterwards, before tbe cause was brought on for trial of tbe issue, tbe defendants below withdrew their plea, and were thereupon adjudged in default, and on motion of tbe attorney of the plaintiff below judgment interlocutory was entered; afterwards, on motion, judgment was rendered for the amount of tbe note and costs, to wit, $399.11 damages, and costs to be taxed.
Tbe record presented in tbe case furnishes no fuller statement of facts other than that given above, and what is set forth in tbe opinion of the court. This doubtless is owing to a failure to bring to tbe record, by bill of exceptions, tbe matters excepted to in tbe proceedings in tbe court below.
Hood & Tenny, for tbe plaintiffs in error.
Smith & Keyes, for tbe defendant in error.

Opinion:
By the Court,
Cole, J.
There being no bill of exceptions in this case, we can only notice such alleged errors as appear upon tbe record. The counsel for the plaintiffs in error contends that the proof in the court below was defective or insufficient to warrant the finding of the court. If the objections had been properly taken and incorporated in a bill of' exceptions, we might have considered them. But now it is otherwise.
The objection taken to the record is, that it does not show that the court entered an interlocutory judgment upon the plea being withdrawn by the defendants below. We think the record does show that such a judgment was entered by the court. The form entered may not be as -full as the forms contained in the precedents of judgment records given in books of practice in the state of New York; yet we think it is sufficient. It is a judgment of the court, and not a rule for a judgment drawn by counsel, as supposed on the argument.
Judgment of the Circuit Court is therefore affirmed, with costs.