Maxwell v. Jarvis
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Dane County. Bill to foreclose a mortgage, filed April 3d, 1856. Judgment pro confesso against the mortgagors, October 6th, 1856. Wm. B. Jarvis, Sen., who was made a defendant as the owner of another mortgage on the same premises, having been duly shown to be a non-resident of the state, an order had been procured and duly published requiring him to plead, answer or demur on or before the 27th of October.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Dane County. Bill to foreclose a mortgage, filed April 3d, 1856. Judgment pro confesso against the mortgagors, October 6th, 1856. Wm. B. Jarvis, Sen., who was made a defendant as the owner of another mortgage on the same premises, having been duly shown to be a non-resident of the state, an order had been procured and duly published requiring him to plead, answer or demur on or before the 27th of October. On the day last mentioned the plaintiff’s attorneys stipulated that the answer of said William B. Jarvis Sen., might be put in without his oath or…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Paute J.
We think the authorities cited by the appellant’s counsel show that when an answer is ac-*508P"11* before an order taking tbe billyiro confesso, and for judgment for want of an answer, is made, it is irregular to -fcalsie sucb latter order without first removing tbe answer from tbe record, although the time for answering had expired when it was filed. The plaintiff’s judgment was therefore irregular, without reference to the stipulation of the parties under which the answer was put in. But on referring to that stipulation, we think it would not be going too far to say that…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Pritchard v. HuntingtonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1863
- Reichert v. LonsbergWisconsin Supreme Court · 1894