Case Name: Zastrow, Appellant, vs. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Company, Respondent
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1924-04-08
Citations: 183 Wis. 463
Docket Number: 
Parties: Zastrow, Appellant, vs. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Company, Respondent.
Judges: Owen and Crownhart, JJ., dissent.
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 183
Pages: 463–470

Head Matter:
Zastrow, Appellant, vs. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Company, Respondent.
March 13
April 8, 1924.
Judgment: Res adjudicata: Action of infant by guardian ad litem: Dismissal becatise unreversed judgment in justice’s court: Appeal.
1. Judgment of dismissal of a complaint is res adjudicata where it has not been appealed from and stands unreversed, p. 465.
2. A judgment against a guardian ad litem dismissing an action for personal injuries on the ground that the plaintiff whom he represents had previously obtained a judgment in justice’s court for the injuries, would be only an erroneous judgment, assuming 'that the justice’s judgment was fraudulently procured. The infant’s remedy was by appeal under sec. 3039, Stats., and, not having appealed, a new action to set aside the justice’s judgment and for personal injuries after reaching majority was barred, p. 465.
3. A judgment not appealed from against a minor by her guardian ad litem, dismissing her action for personal injuries on the merits, bars a subsequent new action by the infant after reaching majority, p. 466.
Owen and Crownhart, JJ., dissent.
. Appeal from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: Oscar M. Fritz, Circuit Judge.
Affirmed.
The material allegations of the amended complaint are to the effect that plaintiff arrived at the age of twenty-one years within a year of the commencement of this action; that in 1903, when she was about two years of age, she sustained, through the negligence of the defendant, an injury to both her feet, necessitating their amputation at the heels, to her damage in the sum of $50,000. It further alleges, that due notice of injury was served, and that the defendant falsely and fraudulently represented to her father, Herman Zastrow, that plaintiff had no right to recover because she had no right to be in the street uñattended, and that the negligence of her parents, or of those in whose care she then was, would be imputed to her and bar a recovery, and that like representations were made to her father as to his right to recover for her care and expenses caused by the injury as well as diminished earning capacity; that by reason of such false and fraudulent representations her father was induced to settle the claims of both for the sum of.$250. It then alleged that,-¿ft order to speedily consummate such fraud the defendant induced Herman Zastrow to appear in a justice’s court, as her next, friend, where issues were made up and defendant admitted liability, and a judgment for $200 in her behalf was entered and paid.
Later and on or about June, 1904, a guardian ad litem was appointed for plaintiff and an action was. begun in the circuit court for Milwaukee county to recover damages for the injuries sustained by her, charging negligence on the part of the defendant. The complaint in this action set out in great detail the. fraud practiced upon her in obtaining the justice’s court judgment, but did not pray in terms for its vacation or that the defendant be enjoined from setting it up as a defense. Such justice’s court judgment was pleaded in bar, and the circuit court held it to be a bar on the ground, as we understand it, that it could not be attacked collaterally. No appeal was ever taken from the judgment of the circuit court dismissing the plaintiff’s cause of action upon the merits. The present complaint does not allege that any proof to sustain the claim of fraud in obtaining the justice’s court judgment was introduced in the action in the circuit .court. The defendant demurred .to the complaint, and from, an order sustaining the demurrer the plaintiff appealed.
For the appellant there was a brief by Schmitz, Wild & Gross of Milwaukee, and oral argument by A. J. Schmitz.
For the respondent there was a brief by Van Dyke, Shaw, Muskat •& Van Dyke of Milwaukee, and oral argument by James D„ Shaw.

Opinion:
Vxnje, C. J.
We have not set out in detail all the allegations in the complaint that show a cause of action once existing for damages for personal injuries or for fraud in obtaining the justice's court judgment, for we shall assume plaintiff had a cause of action for both. ' It is not quite clear that the circuit court passed upon the merits of the validity of the justice's court judgment. If we assume that it did, then its decision upon that point is res judicata because it has not been appealed from and stands unreversed. If we assume that it did not, as we do, then plaintiff could still maintain an action to restrain the defendant from using the justice's court judgment as a defense. But that would avail the plaintiff nothing, for she is still faced with the judgment of the circuit court dismissing her cause of action for personal injuries upon the merits. It is not claimed in the complaint that the circuit court judgment was obtained by fraud or mistake. That court was advised of all the facts this court now has as to the fraud claimed to vitiate the justice's court judgment. So at best the circuit court judgment was only an erroneous one. The remedy for that was by appeal, and plaintiff being a minor had eleven years in which to take it. Sec. 3039, Stats. 1923. Not having appealed, the judgment dismissing her cause of action for personal injury stands unreversed and is res judicata and a bar to her present action. Stowell v. Eldred, 26 Wis. 504; Crowns v. Forest L. Co. 102 Wis, 97, 78 N. W. 433; Balch v. Beach, 119 Wis. 77, 95 N. W. 132; Boring v. Ott, 138 Wis. 260, 119 N. W. 865; Laun v. Kipp, 155 Wis. 347, 145 N. W. 183; Zohrlaut v. Mengelberg, 158 Wis. 392, 148 N. W. 314, 149 N. W. 280; First Nat. Exch. Bank v. Harvey, 176 Wis. 64, 186 N. W. 215. Her present action is essentially one to recover damages for. personal injuries. The other allegations of the complaint are for the purpose of removing obstacles to her right to such recovery. From what has been said it results that the circuit court judgment, right or wrong, stands as a complete bar to her right to 'recover, and that an avoidance of the justice's court judgment, to which she may be entitled, would do her-no good.
By the Court. — Order affirmed.