Summary
upholding circuit court's refusal to grant plaintiff's motion to dismiss in a divorce action, noting, inter alia, that the defendant had not been given an opportunity to refute charges made against her
Summary of this case from State v. LeeOpinion
April 9, 1957 —
May, 7, 1957.
APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Green Lake county: RUSSELL E. HANSON, Circuit Judge. Reversed.
For the appellant there was a brief and oral argument by A. D. Sutherland of Fond du Lac.
For the respondent there was a brief by Lehner Lehner of Princeton, and oral argument by Philip Lehner, Sr.
On January 4, 1956, Hugh L. Burling commenced an action for divorce from Shirley Ryan Burling, alleging that she had wilfully deserted plaintiff. Defendant answered, denying the alleged wilful desertion and praying that the complaint be dismissed with costs. On April 24, 1956, on motion of defendant, an order was entered requiring plaintiff to make payments for support of defendant and for her costs.
On May 9, 1956, plaintiff obtained an order that defendant show cause why she and her child should not be required to submit to a blood test and why she should not be required to submit to a lie-detector test. Defendant filed an affidavit denying statements made by plaintiff in seeking said order and there has been no further proceeding on that matter.
On June 21, 1956, defendant moved that plaintiff be adjudged in contempt for failure to pay support money and costs and that the amounts he had previously been ordered to pay be increased. This motion was heard July 6th, but no order was entered.
On October 3, 1956, the court entered an order reciting that the plaintiff had appeared by his attorneys and moved the court to dismiss the action and ordering that the action be dismissed. The record discloses no notice to defendant. Defendant later made a motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to pay a suitable sum to defendant's counsel, in order to prosecute an appeal from the order dated October 3d. That motion was heard November 7, 1956, but the record discloses no order disposing of it. On November 29th, defendant appealed from the order dated October 3d (referred to in the notice of appeal as "judgment"), the "failure" of the court to decide the motion heard July 6th, and the "failure" of the court to decide the motion heard November 7th.
At common law, and in early years under the code, a plaintiff had the absolute right to discontinue an action before or after issue joined and without leave of court. Bertschy v. McLeod, 32 Wis. 205, 210. Later decisions, however, recognize certain qualifications upon plaintiff's right to discontinue. Leave to discontinue may be denied, in the discretion of the court, if the rights of defendant, third parties, or the public will be substantially prejudiced by discontinuance. State ex rel. Milwaukee v. Ludwig, 106 Wis. 226, 233, 82 N.W. 158; School District v. Clifcorn, 133 Wis. 465, 467, 112 N.W. 1099; Anderson v. Horlick's Malted Milk Co. 137 Wis. 569, 572, 119 N.W. 342; Guinther v. Milwaukee, 217 Wis. 334, 258 N.W. 865. In a divorce action it has been held that plaintiff husband was not entitled to, an unconditional discontinuance, but the court had discretion to require him to pay the reasonable expenses incurred in defense of the. action as a condition. Schulz v. Schulz, 128 Wis. 28, 31, 107 N.W. 302.
Because plaintiff's right to discontinue is not absolute, and it is the duty of the court to exercise discretion, we consider that a plaintiff's motion for dismissal should be heard upon notice. There was no notice to defendant in the case before us, and the order of dismissal must therefore be reversed. We conclude that plaintiff's motion for dismissal will still be before the circuit court, to be heard upon notice. Defendant will thus have an opportunity to present her position to the circuit court. She has asserted here that she is prejudiced by the dismissal because (1) her motion that plaintiff be adjudicated in contempt has not been decided, (2) she has had no opportunity to refute charges made against her in connection with plaintiff's motion for a blood test, and (3) she has not been awarded costs. We leave the merits of these assertions to the circuit court.
The notice of appeal included the "failure" of the circuit court to act on two matters. In a proper case, upon proper application for exercise of the superintending control of this court over others, an appropriate writ may be issued compelling a circuit court to dispose of a pending matter. Appeals are taken from orders or judgments. An "appeal" from inaction accomplishes nothing, and only the order of dismissal is before us on this appeal.
By the Court. — Order reversed, cause remanded for further proceedings upon plaintiff's motion to dismiss.