Legal Opinion

Rio-Fall River Union Bank v. Hollnagel

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided February 14, 1940PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMartin, J.

Before taking up the legal questions involved on this appeal, we think it proper to state the attitude of the trial court with reference to a deficiency judgment as disclosed by the record. During the progress of the hearing on appellants’ motion for a confirmation of the sheriff’s report of sale and for judgment for the amount of the deficiency, the court said:

“The Court: Til tell you how the court feels about this. I think a deficiency judgment is an invention of the devil. I don’t think there ever should have been such a thing. Of course the law provides for it, and I don’t know as the law…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Suring State Bank v. GieseWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
  2. Kremer v. RuleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
  3. Northwestern Loan & Trust Co. v. BidingerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1937
  4. Weimer v. UthusWisconsin Supreme Court · 1935
  5. Kuener v. SmithWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Bihlmire v. HahnWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
  2. Welfare Building & Loan Ass'n v. GearhardWisconsin Supreme Court · 1940
  3. Welfare Building & Loan Asso. v. HennesseyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1957
  4. Russell v. Superior Journal Co.District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 1942

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API