opposite doctrine in Wisconsin

1989"It is well *525 settled that the law in this state presumes all legislative acts are constitutional, and the [challenger] in order to prevail must prove the opposite by a standard beyond a reasonable doubt." Quinn v. Town of Dodgeville, 122 Wis. 2d 570, 577 , 364 N.W.2d 149 (1985).

1989"It is well *525 settled that the law in this state presumes all legislative acts are constitutional, and the [challenger] in order to prevail must prove the opposite by a standard beyond a reasonable doubt." Quinn v. Town of Dodgeville, 122 Wis. 2d 570, 577 , 364 N.W.2d 149 (1985).

2008Id. at 118 .

2007Id.

1977Holytz v. Milwaukee, 17 Wis.2d 26 , 115 N.W.2d 618 (1962). [2] The existence of the rescue doctrine in other jurisdictions was acknowledged in Central Wis. Trust Co. v. Chicago & N.W.R.

1977Holytz v. Milwaukee, 17 Wis.2d 26 , 115 N.W.2d 618 (1962). [2] The existence of the rescue doctrine in other jurisdictions was acknowledged in Central Wis. Trust Co. v. Chicago & N.W.R.

1903Some of them are cited in the opinion of Mr. Justice Cassoday in Kroushop v. Shontz, 51 Wis. 204 [ 8 N. W. 241 .] In all the cases in this court cited by counsel to maintain the opposite doctrine the wife had a separate estate or business.

1903Some of them are cited in the opinion of Mr. Justice Cassoday in Kroushop v. Shontz, 51 Wis. 204 [ 8 N. W. 241 .] In all the cases in this court cited by counsel to maintain the opposite doctrine the wife had a separate estate or business.

1892Counsel for the town place much reliance upon the case .of Milwaulc.ee v. Milwaukee, 12 Wis. 93 , as holding the opposite doctrine.

1892Co. 65 Wis. 585 , cited to the opposite doctrine, is not in point.

1890The case of Dodge v. Benedict, 59 Vt. 651 , is cited by counsel for defendant to sustain the opposite doctrine.

1887They are stated, perhaps, fuller and more satisfactorily in Dawson v. Hartsfield, 79 N. C. 334 , than in any other case, and they commend themselves to our judgment. (1) The bankrupt law, and the oath required of the creditor to prove his claim, show that it is the debt itself, in whatever form or however evidenced, which is affected by the discharge. (2) The consideration must be inquired into in order to ascertain whether the debt is provable, or of such a nature as to prevent a discharge (as in Palmer v. Hussey, supra). (3) The judgment is no more evidence of a new debt, in such a case, tha

1887They are stated, perhaps, fuller and more satisfactorily in Dawson v. Hartsfield, 79 N. C. 334 , than in any other case, and they commend themselves to our judgment. (1) The bankrupt law, and the oath required of the creditor to prove his claim, show that it is the debt itself, in whatever form or however evidenced, which is affected by the discharge. (2) The consideration must be inquired into in order to ascertain whether the debt is provable, or of such a nature as to prevent a discharge (as in Palmer v. Hussey, supra). (3) The judgment is no more evidence of a new debt, in such a case, tha

1885See Randall v. Buffington, 10 Cal. 491 ; Wilcox v. Hawley, 31 N. Y. 648 .

1885The only case determined by this court, cited as sustaining the opposite doctrine, is that of Blake v. Van Tilborg, 21 Wis. 672 .

1883The following authorities sustain the decision of the court of errors and appeals of New Jersey, above cited: Parkhurst v. Jacobs, 17 Mich., 302 ; Harker v. Dement, 9 Grill, 7-12; Armory v. Delamirie, 1 Strange, 505; Sutton v. Buck, 2 Taunt., 302; Burton v. Hughes, 2 Bing., 173; Duncan v. Spear, 11 Wend., 54 ; Daniels v. Ball, id., 57; Gardner v. Heart, 1 N. Y., 528 ; Magee v. Scott, 9 Cush., 148 ; Hubbard v. Lyman, 8 Allen, 520 ; Burke v. Savage, 13 Allen, 40§; Bartlett v. Hoyt, 29 N. H., 317; Knapp v. Winchester, 11 Vt., 351 ; Coffin v. Anderson, 4 Blackf., 395 ; Carter v. Bennett, 4 Fla., 2

1883The following authorities sustain the decision of the court of errors and appeals of New Jersey, above cited: Parkhurst v. Jacobs, 17 Mich., 302 ; Harker v. Dement, 9 Grill, 7-12; Armory v. Delamirie, 1 Strange, 505; Sutton v. Buck, 2 Taunt., 302; Burton v. Hughes, 2 Bing., 173; Duncan v. Spear, 11 Wend., 54 ; Daniels v. Ball, id., 57; Gardner v. Heart, 1 N. Y., 528 ; Magee v. Scott, 9 Cush., 148 ; Hubbard v. Lyman, 8 Allen, 520 ; Burke v. Savage, 13 Allen, 40§; Bartlett v. Hoyt, 29 N. H., 317; Knapp v. Winchester, 11 Vt., 351 ; Coffin v. Anderson, 4 Blackf., 395 ; Carter v. Bennett, 4 Fla., 2

1883The following authorities sustain the decision of the court of errors and appeals of New Jersey, above cited: Parkhurst v. Jacobs, 17 Mich., 302 ; Harker v. Dement, 9 Grill, 7-12; Armory v. Delamirie, 1 Strange, 505; Sutton v. Buck, 2 Taunt., 302; Burton v. Hughes, 2 Bing., 173; Duncan v. Spear, 11 Wend., 54 ; Daniels v. Ball, id., 57; Gardner v. Heart, 1 N. Y., 528 ; Magee v. Scott, 9 Cush., 148 ; Hubbard v. Lyman, 8 Allen, 520 ; Burke v. Savage, 13 Allen, 40§; Bartlett v. Hoyt, 29 N. H., 317; Knapp v. Winchester, 11 Vt., 351 ; Coffin v. Anderson, 4 Blackf., 395 ; Carter v. Bennett, 4 Fla., 2

1883The following authorities sustain the decision of the court of errors and appeals of New Jersey, above cited: Parkhurst v. Jacobs, 17 Mich., 302 ; Harker v. Dement, 9 Grill, 7-12; Armory v. Delamirie, 1 Strange, 505; Sutton v. Buck, 2 Taunt., 302; Burton v. Hughes, 2 Bing., 173; Duncan v. Spear, 11 Wend., 54 ; Daniels v. Ball, id., 57; Gardner v. Heart, 1 N. Y., 528 ; Magee v. Scott, 9 Cush., 148 ; Hubbard v. Lyman, 8 Allen, 520 ; Burke v. Savage, 13 Allen, 40§; Bartlett v. Hoyt, 29 N. H., 317; Knapp v. Winchester, 11 Vt., 351 ; Coffin v. Anderson, 4 Blackf., 395 ; Carter v. Bennett, 4 Fla., 2

1883The following authorities sustain the decision of the court of errors and appeals of New Jersey, above cited: Parkhurst v. Jacobs, 17 Mich., 302 ; Harker v. Dement, 9 Grill, 7-12; Armory v. Delamirie, 1 Strange, 505; Sutton v. Buck, 2 Taunt., 302; Burton v. Hughes, 2 Bing., 173; Duncan v. Spear, 11 Wend., 54 ; Daniels v. Ball, id., 57; Gardner v. Heart, 1 N. Y., 528 ; Magee v. Scott, 9 Cush., 148 ; Hubbard v. Lyman, 8 Allen, 520 ; Burke v. Savage, 13 Allen, 40§; Bartlett v. Hoyt, 29 N. H., 317; Knapp v. Winchester, 11 Vt., 351 ; Coffin v. Anderson, 4 Blackf., 395 ; Carter v. Bennett, 4 Fla., 2

1883The following authorities sustain the decision of the court of errors and appeals of New Jersey, above cited: Parkhurst v. Jacobs, 17 Mich., 302 ; Harker v. Dement, 9 Grill, 7-12; Armory v. Delamirie, 1 Strange, 505; Sutton v. Buck, 2 Taunt., 302; Burton v. Hughes, 2 Bing., 173; Duncan v. Spear, 11 Wend., 54 ; Daniels v. Ball, id., 57; Gardner v. Heart, 1 N. Y., 528 ; Magee v. Scott, 9 Cush., 148 ; Hubbard v. Lyman, 8 Allen, 520 ; Burke v. Savage, 13 Allen, 40§; Bartlett v. Hoyt, 29 N. H., 317; Knapp v. Winchester, 11 Vt., 351 ; Coffin v. Anderson, 4 Blackf., 395 ; Carter v. Bennett, 4 Fla., 2

1877Some of these are cited in Viles v. Bangs, supra. But that question is not an open one in this state.

1874But that case is believed to be in conflict with nearly all of the adjudged cases on the subject, and this court held the opposite doctrine in Smith v. Russ, 17 Wis., 227 .

1873These are Bunker v. Locke, 15 Wis., 635 ; and Robinson v. Russell, 24 Cal., 467 .

1873These are Bunker v. Locke, 15 Wis., 635 ; and Robinson v. Russell, 24 Cal., 467 .

1872These are the cases of Fitzgerald v. The People, 37 N. Y., 413 ; and Kennedy v. The People, 39 Id., 245.

1871McDonald v. Western Railroad Corporation, supra, and Goold v. Chapin, 20 N. Y. 259 , assert the opposite doctrine.

1871McDonald v. Western Railroad Corporation, supra, and Goold v. Chapin, 20 N. Y. 259 , assert the opposite doctrine.

1860Camp, 12 John., 451 , though a different opinion is intimated in Rice vs.