
    Mills, Respondent, vs. The National Fire Insurance Company, Appellant.
    
      September 12
    
    October 2, 1894.
    
    
      Change of venue.
    
    The circuit court upon its own motion can change the venue of an-action only in the cases mentioned in sec. 2623, E. S.; and the facts must appear from the record.
    
      APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Ohij>j>ewa County.
    It appears from the record that this action was commenced in the circuit court for Eau Claire county, and issue was joined therein August 2, 1890; that February 8, 1892, the parties, by their respective attorneys, stipulated in open court that the presiding-judge might call in another judge to try the cause, with a jury to be impaneled therein, unless the action should be continued for cause; that February 23, 1892, that stipulation was filed of record in the cause; that September 21, 1893, the cause being on the calendar and then for tidal, the court ordered that the same be transferred to the county of Chippewa for trial, as provided by law, and that order was entered therein and recited that the defendant’s attorney had objected to the cause being tried by the presiding judge, because of the entry of the stipulation so on file; that September 22, 1893, the record was filed and entered in the circuit court for Chippewa county; that April 3, 1893, the circuit court for Chippewa county refused to strike the cause from the .calendar; that on the same day the term of the .circuit court for Chippewa county was, by consent of all of the attorneys, continued, the term including the cause in question ; that May 1, 1894, the defendant’s attorney moved ■.the court, upon due notice to the plaintiff, and upon the accords in the cause, and upon an affidavit duty served, to remove the action for hearing- and trial to the circuit court for Eau Claire county, for the reason that the action was never legally or properly removed therefrom, and could -not be legally tried in Chippewa county. From an order .denying that motion the defendant appeals.
    The cause was submitted for the appellant on the brief .of V. W. James, and for the respondent on that of J. F. Filis.
    
    .For the respondent it was contended, inter alia, that if snust be assumed from the record that the removal from Eau Claire county was for one or more of the causes designated in sec. 2622, E. S. The presiding judge must have bad reason to believe that an impartial trial could not be had therein while he presided, or that the ends of justice would be promoted by the change,— the removal in either case being at the discretion of the court, provided the facts upon which the removal was founded were satisfactory to him. Lego v. /Shaw, 38 Wis. 401; Church v. Milwaukee, 31 id. 512. The matter warranting the change may be within his own knowledge. Schattschneider v. Johnson, 39 Wis. 387; Jackman Will Case, 27 id. 409. And where an order is made on the above grounds it must be assumed that the court was satisfied of the existence of the cause for the removal. Orese v. Schultz, 60 Wis. 449. It is sufficient if the court is satisfied that a cause for change exists to promote the ends of justice, and no petition or affidavit is required by statute or rule of court. Cartright v. Belmont, 58 Wis. 370. See, also,, Challoner v. Boyington, 86 id. 217; Postel v. Weinhagen, id. 302: Maher v. Davis dc Starr L. Co. id. 530.
   Cassoday, J.

The change of venue in pending actions is a matter regulated entirely by statute. The statute provides that “ whenever the judge is a party, or interested in the matter in controversy, in any action pending before him, or is related to, or has been of counsel for either party, the court, or the presiding judge thereof, shall, upon application of either party, and may without such ayylication, change the place of trial of such action.” E. S. see. 2623. It appears from the record that the order changing the venue from Eau Claire county to Chippewa county was-made by the presiding judge on his own motion, and without the knowledge or consent of the defendant’s attorney. The record fails to show that the presiding judge was a party, or interested in the controversy, or was related. to> either of the parties, or had been of counsel in the case for either of the parties. This being so, he manifestly had no authority to make the order changing the venue to Chippewa county, as he did.

By the Court.— The order of the circuit court appealed from is reversed, and the cause is remanded with direction to change the venue back to Eau Claire county.  