Gratiot State Bank v. Martin

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Gratiot State Bank v. Martin

7 N.W.2d 863, 242 Wis. 254, 1943 Wisc. LEXIS 203

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 11, 1943

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 7 N.W.2d 863 (Gratiot State Bank v. Martin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gratiot State Bank v. Martin, 7 N.W.2d 863, 242 Wis. 254, 1943 Wisc. LEXIS 203 (Wis. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

RoseNberry, C. J.

The question presented by this record is whether this court should now abandon the rule which has obtained here for many years that an offer or agreement to advance a bid upon a resale which is made before the sale is confirmed, not accompanied by a showing of mistake, misapprehension, or inadvertence, is insufficient to sustain an order setting aside the sale (Adams v. Haskell (1859), 10 Wis. *123; Kneeland v. Smith (1861), 13 Wis. *591; Griswold v. Barden (1911), 146 Wis. 35, 130 N. W. 952; A. J. Straus Paying Agency v. Jensen (1938), 226 Wis. 462, 277 N. W. 105) ; or whether we shall adopt the minority rule which is that the entire matter of confirmation rests in the discretion of the court. (See 11 A. L. R. pp. 399, 417.) In this case the plaintiff makes no claim that there was any mistake, misapprehension, or inadvertence on its part.

The plaintiff contends that because it consented to the setting aside of the first sale, it is. now entitled to have the defendants consent to the setting aside of the second sale. It says that such a procedure would be no more than fair. The trouble with plaintiff’s position is that the defendants do *256 not give their consent and no authorities support it. A mere expectation of favor, even if it were well founded, is not a mistake, a misapprehension, or an inadvertence.

It is considered that the long-established rule should be adhered to.

By the Court. — The order appealed from is reversed, and cause remanded with directions to confirm the sale.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

RoseNberry, C. J.

The question presented by this record is whether this court should now abandon the rule which has obtained here for many years that an offer or agreement to advance a bid upon a resale which is made before the sale is confirmed, not accompanied by a showing of mistake, misapprehension, or inadvertence, is insufficient to sustain an order setting aside the sale (Adams v. Haskell (1859), 10 Wis. *123; Kneeland v. Smith (1861), 13 Wis. *591; Griswold v. Barden (1911), 146 Wis. 35, 130 N. W. 952; A. J. Straus Paying Agency v. Jensen (1938), 226 Wis. 462, 277 N. W. 105) ; or whether we shall adopt the minority rule which is that the entire matter of confirmation rests in the discretion of the court. (See 11 A. L. R. pp. 399, 417.) In this case the plaintiff makes no claim that there was any mistake, misapprehension, or inadvertence on its part.

The plaintiff contends that because it consented to the setting aside of the first sale, it is. now entitled to have the defendants consent to the setting aside of the second sale. It says that such a procedure would be no more than fair. The trouble with plaintiff’s position is that the defendants do *256 not give their consent and no authorities support it. A mere expectation of favor, even if it were well founded, is not a mistake, a misapprehension, or an inadvertence.

It is considered that the long-established rule should be adhered to.

By the Court. — The order appealed from is reversed, and cause remanded with directions to confirm the sale.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 N.W.2d 863, 242 Wis. 254, 1943 Wisc. LEXIS 203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gratiot-state-bank-v-martin-wis-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack