
    Ellis, Appellant, vs. City of Ashland and others, Respondents.
    
      March 26
    
    April 17, 1903.
    
    
      Appeal: Orders: Record: Review.
    
    On appeal from an order, the record as transmitted contained a number of affidavits presumably in opposition to the motion, but the order itself failed to specify any of the papers on which the motion was heard, and the clerk’s certificate stated merely that the papers transmitted were “all the original papers on file.” Reid, that the order could not be reviewed.
    Appeal from a judgment of tbe circuit court for Ashland county: JohN K. Paeish, Circuit Judge.
    
      Dismissed.
    
    Tbe appeal is by tbe plaintiff from an order denying a motion for an injunction pendente lite.
    
    Eor tbe appellant there was a brief by Tomkins & Tom-kins, and oral argument by W. M. Tomkins.
    
    Eor tbe respondents there were briefs by Geo. F. Merrill, .attorney, and Frank M. Hoyt, of counsel, and oral argument by Mr. Hoyt.
    
   Dodge, J.

Tbe order merely recites that tbe plaintiff’s •order to show cause came on to be beard. That was based •solely on tbe complaint. Tbe record as transmitted contains a number of affidavits presumably in opposition to tbe application. Tbe order, however, fails to specify any of tbe papers -on which tbe motion was beard, and tbe certificate of tbe clerk of court declares merely tbat tbe papers transmitted are “all tbe original papers on file.” Hence we are not certified by tbe order or certificate, or by both together, tbat any of tbe affidavits appearing in tbe record were used upon tbe motion, nor tbat there may not have been others. Upon such a record we cannot review tbe order. Tenney v. Madison, 99 Wis. 539, 75 N. W. 979; Superior C. L. Co. v. Superior, 104 Wis. 463, 80 N. W. 739; Glassbrenner v. Groulik, 110 Wis. 402, 85 N. W. 962.

By the Gourt. — Appeal dismissed.  