Legal Opinion

Estate of McKenzie

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided September 12, 1939PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFowler, J.

The parties to' the suit have assumed that because the premises involved were located in the village of Dancy the homestead of the deceased was limited to one fourth of an acre in extent, and have entirely omitted consideration of a statute which in our view controls the one-fourth-acre limitation of homesteads to cities and incorporated villages. Sub. (33) of sec. 370.01, Stats., which lays down the rules for the construction of statutes, reads:

“The word ‘village’ imports only a municipal corporation organized by some special act or under some general law, except when a different definition…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Harriman v. Queen Insurance Co. of LondonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1880
  2. Binzel v. GroganWisconsin Supreme Court · 1886
  3. Bresnehan v. BresnehanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1936
  4. Roche v. Du BoisWisconsin Supreme Court · 1937
  5. Weisbrod v. DaenickeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1874

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State (Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin) v. City of MadisonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1972
  2. In re BurgusDistrict Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 1990
  3. Rameker v. Fettig (In re Fettig)District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 1980

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

Powered by the Exa API