69 Wis. 260 | Wis. | 1887
The first cause of action was a judgment rendered in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Wisconsin, in favor of Charles Howard and against the town of Waterloo, on the 13th day of September, 1866, for $4,535.01. To this cause of action the defendant plead the statute of limitations of ten years, by virtue of subd. 1 of sec. 16 of ch. 138, R. S. 1858. The said Howard died in 1883, and the plaintiff was appointed administratrix with the will annexed, and copies of the will and letters were filed in Milwaukee county in August, 1886, and this action was commenced on the 26th day of August, 1886. The circuit court found that said first cause of action was barred by said ten-years statute of limitations of 1858, and judgment was rendered thereon in favor of the defendant. On this appeal from said judgment the only question is whether said ten-years statute applied to said first cause of action or said judgment, rendered in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Wisconsin, on the 13th day of September, 1866.
In the revision of 1878, in sec. 4220, the judgments or decrees of United States courts, sitting within this state, were placed, with judgments and decrees of the courts of record of this state, under a bar of twenty years, and the revisors say in their note to said section: “Judgments of United States courts in this state are put on the same footing as domestic judgments, as manifestly proper.” Who put them on the same footing and when were they put on the same footing as domestic judgments? Why, the revisors, and by the revision, as a matter of course. Most certainly the history of this legislation, and the changes manifestly made, do not cast any doubt upon the plain and obvious meaning of this language. Any argument of construction based upon this language might imply a doubt where none can exist. Similar language in the state insolvent law of Minnesota, in Simon v. Mann, 33 Minn. 413, was held to include the circuit court of the United States for the district of Minnesota, but only “in view of the scope and practice
By the Court.— The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.