Reichert v. Lonsberg

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Reichert v. Lonsberg

58 N.W. 1030, 87 Wis. 543, 1894 Wisc. LEXIS 211

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedMay 1, 1894

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 58 N.W. 1030 (Reichert v. Lonsberg) 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

Reichert v. Lonsberg, 58 N.W. 1030, 87 Wis. 543, 1894 Wisc. LEXIS 211 (Wis. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

Winslow, J.

The verification of the complaint was insufficient. The agent who attempted to verify it did not [545]*545state what knowledge he had of the facts. It could, therefore, be treated as unverified, and an answer could be put in without oath. Crane v. Wiley, 14 Wis. 658. The defendant’s unverified answer was therefore properly served, and there was no default when judgment as for default was entered. Thus the judgment was entirely unauthorized, and must be reversed. Maxwell v. Jarvis, 14 Wis. 506.

We were strongly urged to hold that relief should first be sought by application to the circuit court, instead of by appeal from the judgment. Generally, relief from irregularities in the entry of judgment should be first sought in the trial court; but an entry of judgment as for default, when there is no default in fact, is too grave an irregularity not to be taken notice of upon appeal from the judgment. A judgment of foreclosure upon default will be reversed upon appeal for failure to file the lis pendens twenty days before judgment. The irregularity here is more serious. Dawson v. Mead, 71 Wis. 295.

By the Oourt.— Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for further proceedings according to law.

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

Winslow, J.

The verification of the complaint was insufficient. The agent who attempted to verify it did not [545]*545state what knowledge he had of the facts. It could, therefore, be treated as unverified, and an answer could be put in without oath. Crane v. Wiley, 14 Wis. 658. The defendant’s unverified answer was therefore properly served, and there was no default when judgment as for default was entered. Thus the judgment was entirely unauthorized, and must be reversed. Maxwell v. Jarvis, 14 Wis. 506.

We were strongly urged to hold that relief should first be sought by application to the circuit court, instead of by appeal from the judgment. Generally, relief from irregularities in the entry of judgment should be first sought in the trial court; but an entry of judgment as for default, when there is no default in fact, is too grave an irregularity not to be taken notice of upon appeal from the judgment. A judgment of foreclosure upon default will be reversed upon appeal for failure to file the lis pendens twenty days before judgment. The irregularity here is more serious. Dawson v. Mead, 71 Wis. 295.

By the Oourt.— Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for further proceedings according to law.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 N.W. 1030, 87 Wis. 543, 1894 Wisc. LEXIS 211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reichert-v-lonsberg-wis-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack