
    Dufur, imp., Respondent, vs. Home Investment Company, imp., Appellant.
    
      September 7
    
    September 27, 1904.
    
    
      Judgment: Vacating at subsequent term.
    
    In the absence of any claim that a judgment was void or was the result of clerical error, or that it was rendered through mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, and in the absence of any motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, the circuit court has no power to set it aside at a term subsequent to that at which it was rendered.
    Appeal from an order of the circuit court for Ashland county: John K. PaRish, Circuit Judge.
    
      Reversed.
    
    For the appellant there was a brief by A. W. Sanborn, and oral argument by A. T. Pray.
    
    For the respondent the cause was submitted on the brief of E. 0. Alvord.
    
   Winslow, J.

This is an appeal from an order vacating a final judgment. The order was not made during the term at which the judgment was rendered, but at a subsequent term. There was no claim that the judgment was void or was the result of a clerical error, nor was there any proof or claim that it was rendered through mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, so as to come within the provisions of sec. 2832, Stats. 1898. Neither was the motion brought within the provisions of sec. 2879, Stats. 1898. Under these circumstances, the court manifestly erred in vacating the judgment. Whitney v. Karner, 44 Wis. 568; Zinc C. Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 103 Wis. 125, 79 N. W. 229; Bassett v. Bassett, 99 Wis. 344, 74 N. W. 780.

By the Gouri. — Order reversed.  