Durr v. Wildish
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Appeal from an order of tbe circuit court for Milwaukee county; D. H. JohusoN, Circuit Judge. They contended, inter aKa, tbat tbe court was without jurisdiction in tbe premises. If the assignee desires to recover property held or claimed by others he must proceed as every one else is required to do, namely, by action where a trial in the usual method may be had. Frost v. Citizens’ Nat. Baltic, 68 Wis. 234, 240; Mat-timos v. Ott, 87 id. 399, and cases cited.
1Opinion of the CourtCassoday, C. J.
It appears from the record that April 30, 1896, one Adolph Landau was a merchant having a stock of goods and fixtures and in trade in the store at the place mentioned, consisting of- crockery, glassware, silverware, children’s carriages, and other goods, together with the fixtures belonging to the same; that on that day he and his wife gave to the plaintiff a chattel mortgage on all of such stock of goods and fixtures to secure the payment of $2,500, evidenced by four several promissory notes; that it was agreed, in and by the mortgage, that the mortgagors should have the right to sell goods…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Littlejohn v. TurnerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1888
- In re Assignment of GilbertWisconsin Supreme Court · 1896
- Lawson v. StacyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1892
- Case v. JamesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1895
- Ford v. ClarkeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1892
3Cited by3 opinions
- Physicians Plus Insurance v. Midwest Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 2002
- Durr v. WildishWisconsin Supreme Court · 1900
- Physicians Plus Insurance v. Midwest Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 2002