Catura v. Kleiner
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Pepin •county: E. B. BuNdy, Circuit Judge. This is an action to foreclose a mortgage executed by the ■defendant Hewitt to the plaintiff, to secure the purchase money of the land. Rudolph Kleiner was made a defendant, as one claiming some interest in the premises, which was subsequent and subordinate to the plaintiff’s mortgage.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Pepin •county: E. B. BuNdy, Circuit Judge. This is an action to foreclose a mortgage executed by the ■defendant Hewitt to the plaintiff, to secure the purchase money of the land. Rudolph Kleiner was made a defendant, as one claiming some interest in the premises, which was subsequent and subordinate to the plaintiff’s mortgage. Kleiner defended, and asserted that his mortgage was the prior and paramount lien; that he took his mortgage in good faith, and without notice of plaintiff’s mortgage. The mortgaged premises were conveyed by the plaintiff…
1Opinion of the CourtNewmaN, J.
No reason is perceived why this appeal is not governed by the established rule that the findings of the trial court are not to be disturbed unless they are clearly against the preponderance of the testimony. The trial judge has many incidental aids to the understanding and appreciation of the testimony, which this court lacks. He sees the witnesses, observes their manner in giving their testimony, can judge of their intelligence, and receives some reliable impressions from their appearance and conduct of their singleness and veracity, or want of it, which assists him in his judgment of the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Senour Manufacturing Co. v. ClarkeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
- McFarlane v. LoudenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1898
- In re DelegliseWisconsin Supreme Court · 1907