87 Wis. 185 | Wis. | 1894
The motion for the change of venue is based upon a large number of affidavits, stating among other things, in effect, that many farmers resided upon the river below the tannery, and favored a recovery by the plaintiff, as establishing their own right to imaginary damages; that the defendants had two other tanneries in the county,— one at Parkinstown, and another at Rib Lake, — and each of which was about twenty miles from Medford; that many
But there was another insuperable objection to such application. The statute applicable provides that “ no such change shall be made in any action after one continuance had, on the motion of the party apptying for a change, unless it shall appear to the court that the cause therefor was discovered or developed after such continuance.” S. & B. Ann. Stats, sec. 2626. Here the application for such change of venue was made by the defendants several months after they had obtained such continuance, and yet it is not made to appear that the alleged cause for such application was discovered or developed after such continuance.
By the Court.— The order of the circuit court is affirmed.
Cassoday, J. In Erickson, Respondent, vs. Shaw and others, Appellants, the facts are substantially the same as in Schafer v. Shaw, ante, p. 185.
For the reasons given in the opinion filed in that case, the order of the circuit court in this case is affirmed.