
    Mantz, Respondent, vs. Schoen & Walter Company and others, Appellants.
    
      January 16
    
    February 10, 1920.
    
    
      Appeal: Order revising to suppress adverse examination: Special proceeding: Continuing a provisional remedy.
    
    An order refusing to suppress the examination of a party under sec. 4096, Stats., before trial, is not a “special proceeding” as contemplated by sec. 2594, and does not continue a provisional remedy under sub. (3), sec. 3069, and hence is not appealable.
    Appeal from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: E. T. Fairchild, Circuit Judge.
    
      Dismissed.
    
    The appeal is from an order denying the application of the defendant Schoen, in his capacity of vice-president, treasurer, and general manager of the defendant Schoen & Walter Company, a corporation, and the application of the corporation to dismiss the action as to this corporation and Schoen as such officer and to dismiss and suppress the proceeding in the action for an examination of the corporation and of Schoen as such officer under sec. 4096, Stats.
    For the. appellants the cause was submitted on the brief of Charles F. Puls, Jr., and Christian Doerfler, both of Milwaukee, and for the respondent on that of Adolph Kanne-berg Of Milwaukee.
   Per Curiam.

The trial court held that the affidavit of plaintiff sufficiently charges in general the nature and object of the action and is sufficient to entitle the court to proceed with the examination, and that the petition to dismiss the action and suppress the proceeding for an examination of the petitioner as officer of the corporation must be denied. In Milwaukee C. Co. v. Flagge, 170 Wis. 492, 175 N. W. 777, it is held that an order refusing to suppress an examination of a party under the provisions of sec. 4096, Stats., before trial, is a mere proceeding in an action, and is not a special proceeding as contemplated by sec. 2594. It was there also determined that such an order does not continue a provisional remedy within the provisions of sub. (3), sec. 3069, and hence such an order is not appealable.

By the Court. — The appeal is dismissed.  