Markwell v. Thorn
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Milwaukee Countj. TRe defendants appealed from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The case is stated in the opinion. argued, 1. That the executors had no lien upon the premises in question, under the statute -which allowed them to take possession until the debts were paid. (1.) Because the statute is merely permissive and the right lapses if not asserted.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Milwaukee Countj. TRe defendants appealed from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The case is stated in the opinion. argued, 1. That the executors had no lien upon the premises in question, under the statute -which allowed them to take possession until the debts were paid. (1.) Because the statute is merely permissive and the right lapses if not asserted. (2.) Because there was not only no proof that the executors here had ever asserted such right, but defendants offered to prove that they had relinquished it, and that the debts of the estate were all…
1Opinion of the CourtLyon, J.
In February, 1865, one Samuel S. Thorn, a resident of Oneida county, in the state of New York, and an uncle of the defendants, died testate. At the time of his death he was seized in fee of lot 16 in block 42, in the second ward of the city of Milwaukee. -By his last will and testament, _ which was duly proved, admitted to probate, and recorded, in April, 1865, in the surrogate’s court of said county of Oneida, he devised said lot 16 to the defendants, but subject to the payment by them to one Elizabeth Thorn of an annuity of $86, which was made a charge upon the lot. Indeed, the will…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Wilsey v. DennisNew York Supreme Court · 1864
3Cited by3 opinions
- Bridge v. WardWisconsin Supreme Court · 1874
- Triba v. LassWisconsin Supreme Court · 1911
- Woofter v. MatzWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1912