Court Opinion

ID: 9575598
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:15:13.487768+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:35.669332
License: Public Domain

The following opinion was filed November 27, 1962:
Per Curiam
{on motion for rehearing). Subsequent to our original opinion rendered in this case under date of October 2, 1962, the clerk of circuit court for Milwaukee county made a second supplemental return which was received and filed by the clerk of this court on October 12, 1962. This second supplemental return consisted of the affidavits of Donald D. Eckhardt, assistant city attorney of the city of Wauwatosa, and Dorothy V. Lampe, who was deputy clerk of the circuit court for Milwaukee county, assigned to the branch of such court presided over by the Honorable William F. Shaughnessy, on August 15, 1961.
Eckhardt’s affidavit stated that he received notice by postcard dated August 15, 1961, informing him of the hearing set for September 14, 1961, in the instant case. This postcard, which was attached to Eckhardt’s affidavit and made a part thereof, read as follows:
“Circuit Court
Milwaukee County
Case No. 290-255 Date Aug. 15, 1961
City of Wauwatosa vs Thomas Grünewald
The above action has been set for hearing before Judge William F. Shaughnessy on Sept. 14, 1961, at 9:30 a.m. . to determine whether there will be a trial of the issues or an order for dismissal.
Dorothy V. Lampe
Deputy Clerk-Circuit Court”
*90Miss Lampe’s affidavit stated that as deputy clerk of the circuit court for Milwaukee county for the branch presided over by Judge Shaughnessy, she maintained work cards to record the history of each case. On the card maintained for the instant case, she noted in her own handwriting on August IS, 1961, that notice of the hearing scheduled for September 14, 1961, was mailed to the attorneys for the parties. She recalled mailing such notices on that date. The postcard attached to the Eckhardt affidavit is the notice that was so mailed; however, no copy of this notice was retained in the files of the clerk of the circuit court.
The brief of the respondent city of Wauwatosa filed in support of its motion for rehearing is grounded upon the second supplemental return containing the Eckhardt and Lampe, affidavits. This brief states that our request to the clerk of the circuit court for Milwaukee county for a second supplemental return, a copy of which request is quoted in our original opinion, was not received by the attorney for Wauwatosa until on or about October 1, 1962, due to his change of business address. This brief also states that this attorney thereafter caused the second supplemental return which consisted of the Eckhardt and Lampe affidavits, to be made to this court. Regardless of the excuse advanced for delay in filing this second supplemental return, this court is not inclined to adopt the practice of considering facts that are advanced for the first time on a motion for rehearing. Cf. State v. Jelco, Inc. (1957), 1 Wis. (2d) 630, 638b, 85 N. W. (2d) 487, 86 N. W. (2d) 428.
Nevertheless, we revise the last sentence of our original opinion to read as follows: “We go no further than to say that the circuit court’s orders of dismissal and of refusal to reinstate are reversed and that the action is to remain reinstated until the circuit court either (1) makes a factual determination that counsel for appellant Grünewald did *91receive adequate notice of the hearing of September 14, 1961, or (2) sets a further hearing after giving timely notice on the issue of whether or not the action should be dismissed.”
The motion for rehearing is denied without costs.