
    McDonald vs. The United States.
    
      Stay of proceedings.
    
    Alter granting a stay in the foregoing case until this case should be determined, the court, on the application of the defendant in that case, granted a stay of proceedings in this. ATeld, an abuse of discretion.
    APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court for Fond du Lao County.
    This appeal was taken by tbe plaintiff from an order staying proceedings. Tbe case was argued together with tbe foregoing one, and by tbe same counsel.
   Cole, J.

In this case a stay of proceedings was granted on the application of the Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Company. We are at a loss to determine why the stay was granted. The case against the canal company was stayed until this proceeding was determined, which we have held was no abuse of discretion under the circumstances. Now, upon the application of that company, this proceeding is stayed. No reason is shown for granting the stay, and certainly none occurs to our minds which justifies the order. The practice is anomalous, to get one action stayed until some other is determined, and then stay that other suit. This would seem to be equivalent to denying a party all remedy for an injury., No remarks are deemed necessary to point out the irregularity of this order. It was a plain abuse of discretion to grant it upon the application made.

The order must therefore be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings according to law.

By the Gowrt. — So ordered.

EyaN, O. J., took no part.

On a motion for a rehearing, defendant’s counsel contended that this appeal was based upon a misunderstanding of the record, and that the 'order appealed from was not designed as a stay of proceedings herein.

The motion for a rehearing was denied.'  