Farnsworth v. Brunquest
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Oconto County. Trespass quare clausum, for cutting timber on certain pine lands, the title to which was claimed by both parties, under contract from one Polly Ludington, the .former owner of the land. The facts are fully stated in the opinion. The circuit court submitted to the jury, as a question of fact, upon the evidence, whether the contract under which defendants claimed was in fact the contract of Polly Ludington.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Oconto County. Trespass quare clausum, for cutting timber on certain pine lands, the title to which was claimed by both parties, under contract from one Polly Ludington, the .former owner of the land. The facts are fully stated in the opinion. The circuit court submitted to the jury, as a question of fact, upon the evidence, whether the contract under which defendants claimed was in fact the contract of Polly Ludington. The jury found for defendants; and, a motion for a new trial having been overruled, plaintiffs appealed from a judgment upon the verdict.…
1Opinion of the CourtRyan, C. J.
The controversy in this case turns on the title of the respective parties to the locus in quo. It is not material to consider whether the rulings of the court below would have been correct, had the parties both claimed title from a common source. For it is evident to us, as matter of law, that they do not.
The land had belonged to James Ludington. He conveyed it to Polly Ludington, a nonresident. She gave him a power of attorney to sell and convey, etc., with power of substitution. Both instruments were recorded in the proper county. After-*205wards, James Ludington made a loose, verbal agreement…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Williams v. Western Union Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1880
- Home Mutual Insurance Co. of California v. RoeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1888
- Milwaukee Carnival Ass'n v. King, Fowle & McGee Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1902