Herzing v. Hess
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtBroadfoot, J.
The sole question before us is whether or not the deed to Mabel Hess was ever delivered to her. Two principles of law are involved. To constitute a valid delivery of a deed the grantor must intend delivery and part with dominion and control over it. Darling v. Williams, 189 Wis. 487, 207 N. W. 255. Possession of a deed by the grantee raises a presumption that it was delivered to her to take effect according to its terms at the time of its execution. Chase v. Woodruff, 133 Wis. 555, 113 N. W. 973.
The plaintiffs offered proof to show that Chris Herzing lived upon the premises described in the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- George Williams College v. Village of Williams BayWisconsin Supreme Court · 1943
- Lowber v. ConnitWisconsin Supreme Court · 1874
- Rogers v. RogersWisconsin Supreme Court · 1881
- Chaudoir v. WittWisconsin Supreme Court · 1920
- Chase v. WoodruffWisconsin Supreme Court · 1907
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Matter of LemanskiUnited States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 1986
- Meise v. TaymanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1960
- In Matter of Estate of OmernikWisconsin Supreme Court · 1983
- Kepler v. Schmalbach (In re Lemanski)District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 1986
- Parks Engineering, Inc. v. Wisconsin Steel Treating & Blasting Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1956