Miller v. Green
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1DissentGehl, J.
{dissenting). The majority say in effect that as a matter of law any entry upon land and its occupation, no matter that the acts of entry may be infrequent and the occupation may be for short interrupted periods, constitutes such possession as to put a purchaser upon inquiry as to the rights of the person so occupying; that possession, regardless of its nature or extent, serves as notice to put the prospective buyer upon inquiry.
That is erroneous. Possession to constitute notice is that which is required by law, and is defined in Ely v. Wilcox, 20 Wis. *523, *531:
“The next question is, whether there…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Brinkman v. JonesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1878
- Wickes v. LakeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1869
- Mohr v. PorterWisconsin Supreme Court · 1881
- Robinson v. MarachowskyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1924
- Desmond v. PierceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1925
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.