Legal Opinion

Dawson v. Mead

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided March 27, 1888PublishedCited by 3 opinions

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Waupaca County. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. [No appearance for the respondent.]

1Opinion of the Court

By the Cotjet.

This is an action to foreclose a mortgage on real estate. It was commenced by the service of a summons June 23, 1885. Notice of the pendency of the action was filed in the proper office July 15, 1885. The complaint was filed with the clerk of the court in which the action was brought, October 14, 1885, and upon the same day judgment-of foreclosure and for the sale of the *296mortgaged premises was entered. The defendants Mead and Butler appeal from the judgment.

The judgment is premature. Seo. 3187, R. S., provides that such notice must be filed twenty days before judgment. Although…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Flood v. IsaacWisconsin Supreme Court · 1874
  2. Olson v. PaulWisconsin Supreme Court · 1882

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Elmer v. StateArizona Supreme Court · 1919
  2. Gile v. ColbyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Reichert v. LonsbergWisconsin Supreme Court · 1894

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

Powered by the Exa API