4 Wis. 188 | Wis. | 1856
By the Court,
The Supreme Court having de-
But it is contended, that as the failure of the County Court to obtain jurisdiction of this case, arose from the neglect of the appellant, who is the plaintiff in error, a different rule should be adopted. We do not see as this circumstance can make any difference.
The objection is, that the court never became possessed of the case, and it is quite immaterial what the reason is which produced this result. If from any cause the court did not have the case before it, it could give no valid judgment. We must hold, therefore, as we did in the case of Mitchell vs. Kennedy, that so much of the judgment of the court as dismissed the case is affirmed, and so much as gave costs to the defendant must be reversed.