17 Wis. 92 | Wis. | 1863
By' the Court,
The first section of the act (chap
It is a settled rule in the circuit courts, that the plaintiff may select the court and name the county in which he will have the trial, and unless the defendant demand a change and cause the action to be removed, when the county named is not the proper one, the court has jurisdiction to proceed to trial and judgment. Such was the construction put upon the statute (sections 1, 2, 3 and 4, chap. 123, R. S.,) in Pereles vs. Albert, 12 Wis., 666. This action might, therefore, have been com
The fact that the jurisdiction of the municipal court must be exercised within the city and town, does not affect the question. So must that of the circuit court within the county, by the general law. The effect of the statute regulating the commencement of civil actions is, to give the circuit court of each county a kind of incipient jurisdiction throughout the state, and, with the assent of the parties, the power to hear and determine all such actions, without regard to the nature of the controversy or the residence of the litigants. The same jurisdiction and''power are extended to the municipal court by the act under consideration. The defendant, having failed, at the time and in the manner prescribed by law, to demand that the place of trial be changed, assented to the jurisdiction, and the objection by answer came too late, and was properly disregarded by the court.
The objection that the jurisdiction exceeds that of the circuit court, is not true. It may be equal, but does not exceed. And if giving the court an incipient jurisdiction over causes arising, or persons residing, without the municipality, be supposed to conflict with the constitution, the objection is answered in State ex rel. Stark vs. McArthur, 13 Wis., 383.
Judgment affirmed.