Pavelka v. Pavelka
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of tbe circuit court for Barron county: EbaNK A. Ross, Circuit Judge. In a divorce proceeding and in settlement of property rights, tbe defendant J ohn E. Pavelka conveyed to tbe plaintiff an undivided one-balf interest in the west half of tbe southwest quarter of section 17, township 36, range 11 east, Barron county, Wisconsin. Partition proceedings were bad on this land and tbe land sold.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of tbe circuit court for Barron county: EbaNK A. Ross, Circuit Judge. In a divorce proceeding and in settlement of property rights, tbe defendant J ohn E. Pavelka conveyed to tbe plaintiff an undivided one-balf interest in the west half of tbe southwest quarter of section 17, township 36, range 11 east, Barron county, Wisconsin. Partition proceedings were bad on this land and tbe land sold. Tbe present action is brought by tbe plaintiff in tbe court below, being tbe same court where tbe partition proceedings were bad, for tbe purpose of obtaining relief from tbe…
1Opinion of the CourtKeewiN, J.
As a result of divorce proceedings the defendant John E. Pavelka had conveyed an undivided half of the eighty acres in question to the plaintiff, his former wife. He then conveyed his remaining half to William S. Hatton, his brother-in-law, who instituted partition proceedings under which the eighty acres were sold as a unit to A. V. McDowell, defendant, wife of John E. Pavelka’s attorney, W. A. McDowell. A. V. McDowell immediately quitclaimed one forty to John E. Pavelka, who conveyed by warranty deed to one Fligal, a third party, within three days after sale.
The court below found that the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Tarleton v. Goldthwaite's HeirsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1853
- Catlin v. WheelerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1880
- John Paul Lumber Co. v. NeumeisterWisconsin Supreme Court · 1900
- Hornish v. PeckSupreme Court of Iowa · 1880
- Meaders v. GrayMississippi Supreme Court · 1882
3Cited by1 opinion
- Wold v. League of the CrossCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930