Legal Opinion

Klippel v. Borngesser

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 6, 1922PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRosenberry, J.

The sole question raised here is whether or not the outstanding lease constituted an incumbrance within the meaning of that term as used in the warranty deed. The language of the covenant was:

“And that the same are free and clear from all incum-brances whatever, except a mortgage of $1,800, . . . and that the above bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the said parties of the second part, their heirs and assigns, against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming the whole or any part thereof, they will forever warrant and defend.”

In their answer the defendants…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Mills v. CatlinSupreme Court of Vermont · 1849
  2. Demars v. KoehlerSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1898
  3. Brown v. TaylorTennessee Supreme Court · 1905
  4. Simons v. Diamond Match Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1909

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. LOVELAND ESSENTIAL GROUP, LLC. v. Grommon Farms, Inc.Colorado Court of Appeals · 2010
  2. Rice v. ReichWisconsin Supreme Court · 1971
  3. Downtown Parking Company, Inc. v. VorbeckColorado Court of Appeals · 1974
  4. Buchanan v. FlandreauPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas · 1943
  5. Campbell v. RogersWisconsin Supreme Court · 1927

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

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

Powered by the Exa API