Legal Opinion

Weimer v. Uthus

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided January 8, 1935PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRosenberry, C. J.

The determination of the questions raised in this case requires a consideration of the matters dealt with in Suring State Bank v. Giese, 210 Wis. 489, 246 N. W. 556. The same matters were dealt with in Kremer v. Rule, 216 Wis. 331, 257 N. W. 166. As was pointed out in Kremer v. Rule, the law declared in the Suring State Bank Case must be considered in connection with the facts of that case. The court did not say in the Suring State Bank Case that in a foreclosure action a court of equity had plenary power to fix a price and compel the mortgagee to accept the property at that price or forego…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Suring State Bank v. GieseWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
  2. Kremer v. RuleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1934

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Northwestern Loan & Trust Co. v. BidingerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1937
  2. Big Bay Realty Co. v. RosenbergWisconsin Supreme Court · 1935
  3. Wahl v. H. W. & S. M. Tullgren, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1936
  4. Buel v. AustinWisconsin Supreme Court · 1935
  5. Brinckley v. SagerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1939

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API