Latimer v. Morrain

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Latimer v. Morrain

43 Wis. 107

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 15, 1877

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 43 Wis. 107 (Latimer v. Morrain) 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

Latimer v. Morrain, 43 Wis. 107 (Wis. 1877).

Pincite

Opinion

Cole, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of foreclosure rendered on the 16th of May, 1876. There is no bill of exceptions in the case, and we can therefore only review errors which appear upon the record. We fail to discover any error in the judgment roll which should work a reversal of the judgment. It appears that the defendants were personally served with copies of the summons and complaint, but made no appearance in the action. The judgment rendered is certainly warranted by the complaint, and it will be found to be a few cents less than the amount actually due on the mortgage, when the interest is computed according to the correct rule. "We learn from the briefs of counsel and the printed case, rather than from the record proper on the appeal, that the [108]*108premises were sold upon the judgment on the 3d of July, 1876, and the sale confirmed on the 3d of August thereafter; that at the September term of court, a motion was made to modify and correct the judgment, by striking therefrom the amount allowed for solicitor’s fees, and certain items of costs taxed; and that this motion was denied. The appeal, however, is not from that order; and if it were, the law is well settled in this state, that the circuit court could not vacate the judgment after the term, for error of law or fact committed in rendering it. It would seem to be unnecessary to refer to the decisions upon this point. On the record we must presume that the court properly allowed the amount of solicitor’s fees stipulated in the mortgage to be paid in case of foreclosure.

In respect to the taxation of costs, there is nothing in the record to show that either of the defendants appeared before the taxing officer and objected to the taxation of the items which are claimed to be erroneous, as they should have done. Cord v. Southwell, 15 Wis., 211; Perkins v. Davis, 16 id., 470.

It is obvious that the judgment must be affirmed.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.

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

Cole, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of foreclosure rendered on the 16th of May, 1876. There is no bill of exceptions in the case, and we can therefore only review errors which appear upon the record. We fail to discover any error in the judgment roll which should work a reversal of the judgment. It appears that the defendants were personally served with copies of the summons and complaint, but made no appearance in the action. The judgment rendered is certainly warranted by the complaint, and it will be found to be a few cents less than the amount actually due on the mortgage, when the interest is computed according to the correct rule. "We learn from the briefs of counsel and the printed case, rather than from the record proper on the appeal, that the [108]*108premises were sold upon the judgment on the 3d of July, 1876, and the sale confirmed on the 3d of August thereafter; that at the September term of court, a motion was made to modify and correct the judgment, by striking therefrom the amount allowed for solicitor’s fees, and certain items of costs taxed; and that this motion was denied. The appeal, however, is not from that order; and if it were, the law is well settled in this state, that the circuit court could not vacate the judgment after the term, for error of law or fact committed in rendering it. It would seem to be unnecessary to refer to the decisions upon this point. On the record we must presume that the court properly allowed the amount of solicitor’s fees stipulated in the mortgage to be paid in case of foreclosure.

In respect to the taxation of costs, there is nothing in the record to show that either of the defendants appeared before the taxing officer and objected to the taxation of the items which are claimed to be erroneous, as they should have done. Cord v. Southwell, 15 Wis., 211; Perkins v. Davis, 16 id., 470.

It is obvious that the judgment must be affirmed.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 Wis. 107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/latimer-v-morrain-wis-1877.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack