Stites v. Thompson
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court of Douglas county: Chaeles SMith, Judge. The action is to recover the amount of one half of two promissory notes executed by one Henry O. Elsroad to the plaintiff, which were secured by a mortgage upon land. Elsroad sol'd a part of the lands which were subject to the mortgage to the defendants, who assumed and agreed to pay one half of the mortgage debt, as a part of the consideration to be paid by them for the land.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court of Douglas county: Chaeles SMith, Judge. The action is to recover the amount of one half of two promissory notes executed by one Henry O. Elsroad to the plaintiff, which were secured by a mortgage upon land. Elsroad sol'd a part of the lands which were subject to the mortgage to the defendants, who assumed and agreed to pay one half of the mortgage debt, as a part of the consideration to be paid by them for the land. The allegation of the complaint is that, “ as part of the consideration and purchase price of said premises, . . . the said…
1Opinion of the CourtNewMAN, J.
Two reasons are urged in support of the ■demurrer: (1) That the complaint fails to allege that the respondents knew that a clause whereby they assumed and agreed to pay the mortgage was contained in the conveyance of the lands to them, and that they assented to it; and (2) that the respondents are not liable on the promise alleged, as principal debtors, but as sureties, only, for such deficiency as may remain after the application of the mortgaged premises to the payment of the mortgage debt.
1.' It is not the office of a complaint to allege merely evidential facts. Issuable facts only are to…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Bassett v. HughesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1877
- Bishop v. DouglassWisconsin Supreme Court · 1870
- Enos v. SangerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
- Palmeter v. CareyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1885
- Houghton v. MilburnWisconsin Supreme Court · 1882
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Tweeddale v. TweeddaleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1903
- Fanning v. MurphyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1906
- Electric Appliance Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
- Lenz v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
- Waukesha Savings, Building & Loan Ass'n v. HamillWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.