Irvin v. Smith
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court for Door County. Tbe facts are stated in tbe opinion. To tbe point that this proceeding in tbe nature of audita guerela was tbe proper remedjr, be cited McDonald v. Falvey, 18 Wis. 571; Stafford v. Janesville, 15 id. 475; Oooley v. Gregory, 16 id. 303; Broolss v. Hunt, 17 Johns. 484; Freeman on Judgments, sec. 95; 5 Wait’s Pr. 638.
1Opinion
Upon a motion for a rehearing counsel for the respondents contended, inter alia, that the notice of sale of lands is not a return to a writ. The rule which makes the officer liable for a false return depends upon that which makes his return conclusive, and one supplements the other. The return is conclusive only in cases where an action for false return will lie. Gyfford v. Woodgate, 11 East, 299; Freeman on Executions, sec. 365, and cases cited. A return must be in writing. Shover v. Funk, 5 Watts & S. 457; Purrington v. Loring, 7 Mass. 388; Wilson v. Loring, id. 392. It must be signed by…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Nelson v. CookIllinois Supreme Court · 1858
- Bryan v. BridgeTexas Supreme Court · 1851
- Pitts v. MagieIllinois Supreme Court · 1860
- Watson v. BondurantSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Bennett v. VinyardSupreme Court of Missouri · 1863
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.