Hiles v. Brooks
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Clark county: James O’Neill, Circuit Judge. Defendants appeal from a default judgment of foreclosure of a mortgage. The complaint alleged a mortgage securing $5,500 principal, of which $1,000, together with about $500 of interest, was due, and of which the rest was to come due at yearly intervals extending to April, 1905. The judgment is upon one of the usual printed forms.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Clark county: James O’Neill, Circuit Judge. Defendants appeal from a default judgment of foreclosure of a mortgage. The complaint alleged a mortgage securing $5,500 principal, of which $1,000, together with about $500 of interest, was due, and of which the rest was to come due at yearly intervals extending to April, 1905. The judgment is upon one of the usual printed forms. It appears that no •order of reference was made to ascertain with reference to the divisibility of the property, but the judgment recites generally that the plaintiff…
1Opinion of the CourtDodge, J.
1. Appellants assign error upon allowance of ten per cent, interest after judgment, which error, confessed, is claimed to have been cured by the remittitur filed. The efficacy of the remission of any excessive recovery, before an appeal has been perfected, to justify affirmance or dismissal, has frequently been declared and recognized by this court. Duffy v. Hickey, 68 Wis. 380; Reinig v. Hartmam, 69 Wis. 28; Littlejohn v. Turner, 73 Wis. 119; Hogan v. La Crosse, 104 Wis. 106. In German M. F. F. Ins. Co. v. Decker, 74 *258Wis. 556, the consent to remit and the motion for modification of the…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Knarr v. ConawayIndiana Supreme Court · 1873
- Wainscott v. SilversIndiana Supreme Court · 1859
- German Mutual Farmer Fire Insurance v. DeckerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1889
- Hogan v. City of La CrosseWisconsin Supreme Court · 1899
- Duffy v. HickeyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1887
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Arnold v. PikeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1913