Milwaukee County v. City of Milwaukee

49 N.W.2d 902, 259 Wis. 560, 1951 Wisc. LEXIS 241
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 6, 1951
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 49 N.W.2d 902 (Milwaukee County v. City of Milwaukee) 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
Milwaukee County v. City of Milwaukee, 49 N.W.2d 902, 259 Wis. 560, 1951 Wisc. LEXIS 241 (Wis. 1951).

Opinion

Broadfoot, J.

The deed from the city to the county dated September 19, 1938, recited in part:

“This deed is given to correct the legal description designated as parcel No. 1 and contained in warranty deed dated November 12, 1936, . . . being a conveyance of the premises now known as McKinley Park.”

In its memorandum decision the trial court stated:

“As to the county’s second cause of action for reformation, I find the fact to be that the deed of November 12, 1936 (Exhibit 7), effectually conveyed to Milwaukee county McKinley Park as there named. The premises consisted of three parcels and were known as McKinley Park. The description of parcel No. 1 is defective but the deed was effective on its face as to parcel No. 2 and parcel No. 3. It was the manifest intention of the deed to convey all of the right, title, and interest of the city of Milwaukee in McKinley Park. . . .
“The deed dated November 12, 1936 (Exhibit 7), is held to be effective. The defect with respect to parcel No. 1 of McKinlev Park was explainable by parol evidence. Such *562 defect with respect to parcel No. 1 did not invalidate the deed. Hunter v. Neuville, 255 Wis. 423; Hanley v. Kraftczyk, 119 Wis. 352.
“Inasmuch as the action for reformation was commenced more than ten years after the recording of the deed dated November 12, 1936 (Exhibit 7), it must be held to be barred by sec. 330.18 (4), Wisconsin statutes. Parker v. Kane, 4 Wis. *1.”

We agree with the determination of the trial court for the reasons stated.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Becker v. First Wisconsin Trust Co.
80 N.W.2d 440 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1957)
Langer v. Stegerwald Lumber Co.
55 N.W.2d 389 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1952)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
49 N.W.2d 902, 259 Wis. 560, 1951 Wisc. LEXIS 241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/milwaukee-county-v-city-of-milwaukee-wis-1951.