Kurz v. Kurz

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Kurz v. Kurz

97 N.W. 900, 120 Wis. 222, 1904 Wisc. LEXIS 56

DecidedJanuary 12, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 97 N.W. 900 (Kurz v. Kurz) 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

Kurz v. Kurz, 97 N.W. 900, 120 Wis. 222, 1904 Wisc. LEXIS 56 (Wis. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

WiNslow, J.

There are no legal principles to be settled in this case; hence any detailed statement of facts is unnecessary. The action was brought by a married woman to remove an apparent cloud upon her title to real estate, caused by a judgment obtained against her husband when the record title was in his name, and to set aside a sheriffs certificate ■of sale upon such judgment. The court granted the relief sought upon sufficient evidence showing that the plaintiff [223]*223was unable to read or write the- English language; that tbe land in question was bought with hei money exclusively; that, though the title was in her husband’s name for a considerable time, the plaintiff did not know of or consent to such holding; and that as soon as she learned of the fact the title was transferred to her. Upon these facts the judgment was plainly right.

By the Oourt. — Judgment affirmed.

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

WiNslow, J.

There are no legal principles to be settled in this case; hence any detailed statement of facts is unnecessary. The action was brought by a married woman to remove an apparent cloud upon her title to real estate, caused by a judgment obtained against her husband when the record title was in his name, and to set aside a sheriffs certificate ■of sale upon such judgment. The court granted the relief sought upon sufficient evidence showing that the plaintiff [223]*223was unable to read or write the- English language; that tbe land in question was bought with hei money exclusively; that, though the title was in her husband’s name for a considerable time, the plaintiff did not know of or consent to such holding; and that as soon as she learned of the fact the title was transferred to her. Upon these facts the judgment was plainly right.

By the Oourt. — Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 N.W. 900, 120 Wis. 222, 1904 Wisc. LEXIS 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kurz-v-kurz-wis-1904.