Court Opinion

ID: 9527874
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:35:16.182117+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:15.534317
License: Public Domain

The following memorandum was filed January 6, 1959:
Currie, J.
(on motion for rehearing). From the brief filed by counsel for the plaintiff on the motion for rehearing it appears that we misunderstood the plaintiffs argument with respect to sec. 167.12, Stats. It is counsel’s position that the snapping rollers of the cornpicker constituted an automatic feeding device and that defendant’s alleged violation of such statute consisted of his failure to "maintain” such automatic feeding device. However, we adhere to our holding in the original opinion that sec. 167.12 has no application to a tractor-drawn cornpicker.
By the Court. — The motion for rehearing is denied with $25 costs.