Mid-View, Inc. v. Meehan
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtWilkie, J.
Assuming that the encroachment of the two walls and sign on the public right-of-way constitutes an incumbrance warranted against by the deed under which appellant Mid-View, Inc., purchased the property, the first and conclusive issue raised on this appeal is whether appellant has been damaged in any way by the encroachment. The trial court concluded that no damages had been proven. We agree.
A purchaser such as appellant can maintain an action for a breach of covenant against incumbrances, but only nominal damages can be recovered in the absence of an actual injury. The reason for this rule is…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Sinclair v. WeberCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1954
- Killilea v. DouglasWisconsin Supreme Court · 1907
- Carrick v. GormanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1960
- Gadow v. HunholzWisconsin Supreme Court · 1915
- Johnson v. BlumerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1924
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- First American Title Insurance v. DahlmannWisconsin Supreme Court · 2006
- Rice v. ReichWisconsin Supreme Court · 1971