Prosser v. Nickolay
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtRector, J.
The appellants submit two contentions against the validity of the conveyance: (1) The execution of the instrument was a nullity in that no description was contained therein at the time and could not thereafter be inserted pursuant to parol authority; (2) there was no valid delivery prior to the grantor’s death.
In support of their first contention the appellants cite an imposing array of authorities. They are from other jurisdictions, however, and are not in accord with the rule in this state. Our cases hold that parol authority may be given to complete a> conveyance by later inserting a…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Prutsman v. BakerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1872
- Van Etta v. EvensonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1871
- Albright v. AlbrightWisconsin Supreme Court · 1888
- Friend v. YahrWisconsin Supreme Court · 1905
- Williams v. DaubnerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1899
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Castellani v. Kohne (In re Kucharek)District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1987
- Matter of LemanskiUnited States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 1986
- Ritchie v. DavisWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
- Kepler v. Schmalbach (In re Lemanski)District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 1986
- Matter of KucharekUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1987
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.