Legal Opinion

Brown v. Higgins

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided April 3, 1923PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtOwen, J.

The judgment of the lower court was rested on the proposition that the judgment in the action to- quiet title commenced in 1907 was conclusive and binding upon the appellants. Of the appellants here only Malesta Higgins *256was a party to that action. As to her it is no doubt conclusive. The other appellants are sons and daughters of the children of Fitch Higgins who were living at the time of his death. They were not parties to the action to quiet title, except as unknown heirs. Respondents contend that they were, nevertheless, represented in that action by their ancestors, who were parties…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Ruggles v. TysonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1899
  2. Flint v. Wisconsin Trust Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1912
  3. Perkins v. Burlington Land & Improvement Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1902
  4. West v. AndrewsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1918

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Doolittle v. McConnellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
  2. Latimer v. WilliamsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1954
  3. Mathiowetz v. StackWisconsin Supreme Court · 1936

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

Powered by the Exa API