Shaffer v. Whelpley

37 Wis. 334
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1875
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 37 Wis. 334 (Shaffer v. Whelpley) 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
Shaffer v. Whelpley, 37 Wis. 334 (Wis. 1875).

Opinion

Cole, J.

This is an action to set aside and cancel certain conveyances which, it is alleged, constitute a cloud upon the' title of the plaintiff. The complaint is very voluminous, containing a great deal of wholly immaterial matter. But still it is fatally defective. There is no allegation in the complaint that the plaintiff is in the possession of the real estate in question. Such an averment is absolutely essential in a complaint of this character. Wals v. Grosvenor, 31 Wis., 682. The statute only authorizes the action by one in the actual, visible possession of the premises. And where the complaint stated that the plaintiff was the owner in fee simple, and in possession, this court held, in the above cause, that it would presume the possession to be of that character which the statute makes essential to the maintenance of the action. Here it is alleged that the plaintiff is the owner in fee simple of the premises. It is also alleged that her grantor, James Whalen, when he executed the conveyance, dated August 27,1872, under which she claims, was seized and in the possession of them. And it is argued that we must presume that the plaintiff was [336]*336clothed with his possession. We cannot so presume. The plaintiff may be the owner and have the right to the possession of the premises, but still not be in the possession of them. So material a fact as possession should not be left to inference merely, but should be clearly stated.

It follows from these views that the order of the circuit court sustaining the demurrer to the complaint, must be affirmed.

By the Court, — Order affirmed.

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

Related

Moore v. Shofner
67 P. 511 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1902)
Eastman v. Thayer
60 N.H. 408 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1880)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
37 Wis. 334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shaffer-v-whelpley-wis-1875.