McGregor v. Pearson

Wisconsin Supreme Court

McGregor v. Pearson

8 N.W. 101, 51 Wis. 122, 1881 Wisc. LEXIS 27

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 11, 1881

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 8 N.W. 101 (McGregor v. Pearson) 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

McGregor v. Pearson, 8 N.W. 101, 51 Wis. 122, 1881 Wisc. LEXIS 27 (Wis. 1881).

Pincite

Opinion

Cassoday, J.

This is an action -to foreclose a mortgage of $400, bearing date December 6, 1867, purporting to have been executed by William and Mary J. Pearson to Duncan McGregor. The defendant Mary J. Pearson, separately answering, alleged that she did not sign or execute the mortgage, and that the premises therein were the homestead of the mortgagors when it purported to have been given, and had been ever since. Upon the trial of that issue by a jury, it was found that Mary J. Pearson executed the mortgage, and that the premises were a homestead; and it also appeared from the evidence that the mortgage had but one subscribing witness, and that, after the execution of the mortgage, William and Ma/ry J. Pearson conveyed the mortgaged premises to the defendant Mary Ann Pearson, by deed duly sealed, executed, witnessed and recorded, containing covenants that the [123]*123same were free and clear from all incumbrances whatever, except said mortgage; and thereupon judgment of foreclosure and sale was entered for the plaintiff, from which Mary J. Pearson brings this appeal. From this statement it is very evident that Mary J. Pearson, having part'ed with all interest in the premises, had necessarily ceased to have any interest in the controversy. Having no interest in the controversy in the court below, she can have no interest in this appeal. No judgment having been entered against her for deficiency or otherwise, there was nothing for her to appeal from. We therefore hold that an appeal will not lie in favor of one who had no interest in the controversy, and against whom no judgment has been entered, however irregular may be the judgment. Appeals are to be taken by a “ party aggrieved.” Section 3048, R. S. This is too obvious to need authority, but we cite McGinnis v. Wheeler, 26 Wis., 651; Hackley v. Hope, 4 Keyes, 123; Idley v. Bowen, 11 Wend., 227; Mills v. Hoag, 7 Paige, 18; Cuyler v. Moreland, 6 Paige, 273; Steele v. White, 2 Paige, 478.

By the Court. — The appeal is dismissed.

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

Cassoday, J.

This is an action -to foreclose a mortgage of $400, bearing date December 6, 1867, purporting to have been executed by William and Mary J. Pearson to Duncan McGregor. The defendant Mary J. Pearson, separately answering, alleged that she did not sign or execute the mortgage, and that the premises therein were the homestead of the mortgagors when it purported to have been given, and had been ever since. Upon the trial of that issue by a jury, it was found that Mary J. Pearson executed the mortgage, and that the premises were a homestead; and it also appeared from the evidence that the mortgage had but one subscribing witness, and that, after the execution of the mortgage, William and Ma/ry J. Pearson conveyed the mortgaged premises to the defendant Mary Ann Pearson, by deed duly sealed, executed, witnessed and recorded, containing covenants that the [123]*123same were free and clear from all incumbrances whatever, except said mortgage; and thereupon judgment of foreclosure and sale was entered for the plaintiff, from which Mary J. Pearson brings this appeal. From this statement it is very evident that Mary J. Pearson, having part'ed with all interest in the premises, had necessarily ceased to have any interest in the controversy. Having no interest in the controversy in the court below, she can have no interest in this appeal. No judgment having been entered against her for deficiency or otherwise, there was nothing for her to appeal from. We therefore hold that an appeal will not lie in favor of one who had no interest in the controversy, and against whom no judgment has been entered, however irregular may be the judgment. Appeals are to be taken by a “ party aggrieved.” Section 3048, R. S. This is too obvious to need authority, but we cite McGinnis v. Wheeler, 26 Wis., 651; Hackley v. Hope, 4 Keyes, 123; Idley v. Bowen, 11 Wend., 227; Mills v. Hoag, 7 Paige, 18; Cuyler v. Moreland, 6 Paige, 273; Steele v. White, 2 Paige, 478.

By the Court. — The appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 N.W. 101, 51 Wis. 122, 1881 Wisc. LEXIS 27, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgregor-v-pearson-wis-1881.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack