Wœhler v. Endter
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Outagamie County. Replevin. Plaintiff appealed from a judgment of nonsuit. The case is stated in the opinion. 1. The sheriff’s deed should have been admitted in evidence. Sec. 3, ch. 143, Laws of 1877, which controlled the sale, declares that “ the mortgaged premises shall not be sold till one year from the date of the judgment, .... unless all the parties to an action consent to an earlier sale.”
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Outagamie County. Replevin. Plaintiff appealed from a judgment of nonsuit. The case is stated in the opinion. 1. The sheriff’s deed should have been admitted in evidence. Sec. 3, ch. 143, Laws of 1877, which controlled the sale, declares that “ the mortgaged premises shall not be sold till one year from the date of the judgment, .... unless all the parties to an action consent to an earlier sale.” (1) The sale was made after the expiration of a full year from the date of the judgment. But it is argued that the legislature intended that the time between the…
1OpinionCole, J.
Only a few words need be said in answer to the elaborate argument filed on the motion for rehearing. In the above opinion attention is called to the important fact, that in Lane v. King and the other cases the purchaser at the foreclosure sale had entered into the actual possession of the premises, and this circumstance distinguishes those cases from the one at bar. If counsel will but refer to Lane v. King, they will find this stated as a fact, that the purchaser, King, put a tenant into possession, and that, “ at the time of the entry of the tenant of King, there was a crop of rye in the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Aldrich v. ReynoldsNew York Court of Chancery · 1846
- Sherman v. . WillettNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
- Loomis v. WheelerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1864