Legal Opinion

Anthony Grignano Co. v. Gooch

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided May 8, 1951PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGehl, J.

Foreclosure sale was had. The owners complain that the judgment failed to direct “that the interest of the owners in the premises at the commencement of the work,” etc., be sold as required by sec. 289.12, Stats.; also that the notice of sale omitted to indicate that such “interest” would be sold. We consider that there is no merit in this contention. The court was without power to order, and the sheriff was equally without power to sell, anything except the interest of the owners in the premises. The purpose of the statutory requirement seems to be to complement sec. 289.01 (2) (b) which…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Oppenheimer v. CollinsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1902
  2. A. J. Straus Paying Agency, Inc. v. JensenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
  3. Collins v. SmithWisconsin Supreme Court · 1890
  4. Grindo v. McGeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
  5. Coe v. RockmanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1906

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Gumz v. ChickeringWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
  2. Bihlmire v. HahnWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
  3. Carhart v. Carhart-Halaska International, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2015
  4. Wilson v. CraiteWisconsin Supreme Court · 1973
  5. Citizens Bank of Sheboygan v. RoseWisconsin Supreme Court · 1973

3 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