CHUDNOW CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. COMMERCIAL DISC

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 256.

Attorney(S)

For the appellants the cause was submitted on the brief of Clyde E. Sheets and Frank Hiller, all of Milwaukee. For the respondent Commercial Discount Corporation the cause was submitted on the brief of Allan Polacheck and E. H. Snyder, both of Milwaukee.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

CHUDNOW CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COMMERCIAL DISCOUNT CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent: COMMERCIAL DISCOUNT CORPORATION and others, Third-Party Plaintiffs and Respondents: CHUDNOW and others, Third-Party Defendants and Appellants.

The order appealed from denied on grounds of irrelevancy the motion of the plaintiff and some third-party defendants to require the defendant and third-party plaintiffs to answer certain written interrogatories.

PER CURIAM.

In its brief the respondent argues that the order is not appealable.

Sec. 887.30, Stats., was created by court rule effective July 1, 1971. It allows a party to serve written interrogatories upon another party, and in the event an answer is not forthcoming, to move the court in which the action is pending for an order compelling the party failing to answer the interrogatories to do so. In Hyslop v. Hyslop (1940), 234 Wis. 430, 291 N.W. 337, it was held that an order denying the defendant's motion to compel the plaintiff to answer certain questions on an adverse examination was not appealable. For the purpose of appealability of an order refusing to compel an answer, there is no difference between oral and written questions.

The appeal is dismissed with $50 costs.

CHUDNOW CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COMMERCIAL DISCOUNT CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent: COMMERCIAL DISCOUNT CORPORATION and others, Third-Party Plaintiffs and Respondents: CHUDNOW and others, Third-Party Defendants and Appellants.

Comments