Smith v. Dragert
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Shawano County. The action is ejectment. The complaint is in the form required by statute. The answer contains only a general denial and a claim of the benefit of several statutes of limItation therein specified. On the trial before the court (a jury having been waived) the plaintiff proved title in fee to the lands claimed, through and under a patent from the United States.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Shawano County. The action is ejectment. The complaint is in the form required by statute. The answer contains only a general denial and a claim of the benefit of several statutes of limItation therein specified. On the trial before the court (a jury having been waived) the plaintiff proved title in fee to the lands claimed, through and under a patent from the United States. The defendant admitted that when the action was commenced he claimed title to such lands. The defendant introduced eight tax deeds in due form, of the same lands, to his grantor, issued…
1Opinion of the CourtEton, J.
The answer alleges no facts upon which to base the defense of any statute of limitations. lienee, within the rule established in Morgan v. Bishop, 56 Wis., 284, and Paine v. Comstock, 57 Wis., 159, that defense is not available to the defendant. It was error, therefore, to reject the testimony offered by plaintiff to impeach the tax deeds under Avhich the defendant claims. Because such testimony was improperly rejected there must he another trial.
By the Court.— Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Morgan v. BishopWisconsin Supreme Court · 1882
- Paine v. ComstockWisconsin Supreme Court · 1883
3Cited by2 opinions
- Meade v. GilfoyleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1885
- Morgan v. BishopWisconsin Supreme Court · 1884