Pritchard v. Huntington
Wisconsin Supreme Court
ERROR to the Circuit Court for Sauh County. Action to foreclose a mortgage on certain real estate, executed by the defendants, Rufus Hall and Betsey his wife to one Henry Tew and by him assigned to the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the Circuit Court for Sauh County. Action to foreclose a mortgage on certain real estate, executed by the defendants, Rufus Hall and Betsey his wife to one Henry Tew and by him assigned to the plaintiff. The defendant Huntington was made a party defendant, as a subsequent incumbrancer, and he was served on the 17th day of December, 1861, with a copy of the summons only, which required him to answer the complaint within ninety days thereafter, and more than twenty days after the service of the summons his attorney served on the plaintiffs’ attorneys a notice of retainer, and demand of…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Dixon, C. J.
The defendant was too late with his demand for a copy of the complaint. He was served with a copy of the summons only, and the demand should have been made within twenty days after such service. Morley vs. Guild, 13 Wis., 578. And he may have been irregular in making and serving his answer before the complaint was in fact drawn. Such an answer was held irregular in Phillips vs. *571Prescott, 9 How. Pr., 430. But whether irregular or not, the question cannot now be raised. The defect, if any, was cured by the neglect of the plaintiff’s attorneys to return the copy which…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Morley v. GuildWisconsin Supreme Court · 1861
- Maxwell v. JarvisWisconsin Supreme Court · 1861
- Philips v. PrescottNew York Supreme Court · 1854
3Cited by2 opinions
- Western Indemnity Co. v. KendallArizona Supreme Court · 1925
- Germania Fire Ins. v. StoneSupreme Court of Florida · 1885