Riemer v. Schlitz

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Riemer v. Schlitz

5 N.W. 493, 49 Wis. 273, 1880 Wisc. LEXIS 39

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedApril 20, 1880

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 5 N.W. 493 (Riemer v. Schlitz) 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

Riemer v. Schlitz, 5 N.W. 493, 49 Wis. 273, 1880 Wisc. LEXIS 39 (Wis. 1880).

Pincite

Opinion

Oetow, J.

The plaintiff’s claim to the property in dispute consisted of a chattel mortgage given by one Haas to one [277]*277Herbst, and assigned by ITerbst to tbe plaintiff, and of bis right to this mortgage security by subrogation, be having paid, as surety for Haas in a suit against Herbst to enjoin tbe foreclosure of said mortgage, tbe moneys secured thereby to Herbst. Tbe assignment of the note and mortgage was admitted by stipulation of the parties on tbe trial.

The plaintiff’s right of subrogation in such a case is too well settled by this court to require references to authorities in other states. Selleck v. Phelps, 11 Wis., 380; Greenleaf v. Ludington, 15 Wis., 558.

The plaintiff’ distinctly swears that he made demand of the property before the suit was brought.

This disposes of all of the questions raised on the argument, except the effect of the judgment in favor of Herbst against Haas, the mortgagor, for the amount of the note and. interest secured by the mortgage, and the costs in the case of Haas v. Herbst, brought to enjoin the foreclosure of the mortgage. This judgment, rendered as it was, in such a case, in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff, can have no other effect than a determination of the amount of the mortgage moneys to be paid on redemption of the mortgage. And for this purpose, and treating the defense in that action as a proceeding to foreclose the mortgage against the plaintiff, the judgment determining the amount of the mortgage moneys due was very proper, if not necessary, and the costs in such case, which are made a part of the judgment, are a lien upon the mortgaged property', as the costs and expenses of foreclosure would be in any other form or method of foreclosure.

There appears to be no error in the record, and the verdict was warranted by the evidence.

By the Court. — ’The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed, with-costs.

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

Oetow, J.

The plaintiff’s claim to the property in dispute consisted of a chattel mortgage given by one Haas to one [277]*277Herbst, and assigned by ITerbst to tbe plaintiff, and of bis right to this mortgage security by subrogation, be having paid, as surety for Haas in a suit against Herbst to enjoin tbe foreclosure of said mortgage, tbe moneys secured thereby to Herbst. Tbe assignment of the note and mortgage was admitted by stipulation of the parties on tbe trial.

The plaintiff’s right of subrogation in such a case is too well settled by this court to require references to authorities in other states. Selleck v. Phelps, 11 Wis., 380; Greenleaf v. Ludington, 15 Wis., 558.

The plaintiff’ distinctly swears that he made demand of the property before the suit was brought.

This disposes of all of the questions raised on the argument, except the effect of the judgment in favor of Herbst against Haas, the mortgagor, for the amount of the note and. interest secured by the mortgage, and the costs in the case of Haas v. Herbst, brought to enjoin the foreclosure of the mortgage. This judgment, rendered as it was, in such a case, in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff, can have no other effect than a determination of the amount of the mortgage moneys to be paid on redemption of the mortgage. And for this purpose, and treating the defense in that action as a proceeding to foreclose the mortgage against the plaintiff, the judgment determining the amount of the mortgage moneys due was very proper, if not necessary, and the costs in such case, which are made a part of the judgment, are a lien upon the mortgaged property', as the costs and expenses of foreclosure would be in any other form or method of foreclosure.

There appears to be no error in the record, and the verdict was warranted by the evidence.

By the Court. — ’The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed, with-costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 N.W. 493, 49 Wis. 273, 1880 Wisc. LEXIS 39, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riemer-v-schlitz-wis-1880.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack