Legal Opinion

Flanders v. Thomas

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 15, 1860PublishedCited by 11 opinions

ERROR to tbe Circuit Court for Sauh County. Tbe facts in this case are sufficiently stated in tbe opinion of tbe court

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court,

Cole, J.

This action was brought to recover tbe surplus moneys claimed to be due on tbe sale of a lot of logs, mortgaged by Flanders to Thomas, after tbe mortgage debt and costs were satisfied and discharged. The chattel mortgage was in tbe usual form, and contained a clause authorizing tbe mortgagee, on non-payment of tbe sums therein secured to be paid, as they became due, to take possession of tbe mortgaged property, and sell tbe same at public or private sale, after giving ten days notice of the time and place of such sale, and apply tbe proceeds to the payment of tbe notes,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Charter v. StevensNew York Supreme Court · 1846
  2. Patchin v. PierceNew York Supreme Court · 1834
  3. Pettibone v. PerkinsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1858
  4. Nichols v. WebsterWisconsin Supreme Court · 1849

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Merchants National Bank v. BraithwaiteNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1898
  2. Lowe v. WingWisconsin Supreme Court · 1882
  3. Boyd v. BeaudinWisconsin Supreme Court · 1882
  4. Musgat v. PumpellyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1879
  5. Smith v. CoolbaughWisconsin Supreme Court · 1867

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

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

Powered by the Exa API