Superior Consolidated Land Co. v. Nichols

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Superior Consolidated Land Co. v. Nichols

51 N.W. 878, 81 Wis. 656, 1892 Wisc. LEXIS 72

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 22, 1892

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 51 N.W. 878 (Superior Consolidated Land Co. v. Nichols) 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

Superior Consolidated Land Co. v. Nichols, 51 N.W. 878, 81 Wis. 656, 1892 Wisc. LEXIS 72 (Wis. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

LyoN, C. J.

The instrument executed by Bardon and Nichols, which is the basis of the action, is the ordinary executory contract for the sale and conveyance of land, with thé exception that, instead of covenanting to pay Bardon a certain sum of money for the lots, Nichols agreed to make certain expenditures and improvements on the lots within a specified time, and. his right to a conveyance thereof was made conditional upon his performing such [659]*659agreement. The difference is not one of principle. . The parties sustain tbe same relation to each other, have the same interest in the land, and may resort to the same remedies to enforce the agreement in one case as in the other.

Under all the authorities, such relation is that of equitable mortgagor and mortgagee. The mortgagor has only an equitable interest in the land, which, in case of default, may be cut off by a strict foreclosure of the contract. Button v. Schroyer, 5 Wis. 598; Baker v. Beach, 15 Wis. 99; Kimball v. Darling, 32 Wis. 675; London v. Burke, 36 Wis. 378; Northrup v. Trask, 39 Wis. 515.

The argument in support of the demurrer to the complaint goes upon the assumption that this is an action to enforce a forfeiture or right of re-entry for breach, of a condition subsequent, and hence cannot be maintained in equity. This we conceive to be an entire misapprehension of the nature and objects of the action. While the complaint contains averments and demands relief which might be proper in an action to enforce a forfeiture, yet the action is clearly one for a strict foreclosure of the land contract. The complaint contains, all the. averments essential to a valid complaint in such an action, and the appropriate relief is demanded therein. It may be that it shows a waiver by the plaintiff of the right to have the interest of defendants under it declared forfeited, but it does not show any waiver of its right to a strict foreclosure thereof.

The circuit court has power to do full justice between the parties. It may, in the exercise of its discretion, give the defendants further reasonable time to perform the contract, if it seems to the court equitable and just to do so, and it will exert its equitable powers in all proper ways to protect the appellant from wrong; She is confessedly in default. What more favorable terms can she reasonably demand?

By the Court. — The order of the circuit court is affirmed.

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

LyoN, C. J.

The instrument executed by Bardon and Nichols, which is the basis of the action, is the ordinary executory contract for the sale and conveyance of land, with thé exception that, instead of covenanting to pay Bardon a certain sum of money for the lots, Nichols agreed to make certain expenditures and improvements on the lots within a specified time, and. his right to a conveyance thereof was made conditional upon his performing such [659]*659agreement. The difference is not one of principle. . The parties sustain tbe same relation to each other, have the same interest in the land, and may resort to the same remedies to enforce the agreement in one case as in the other.

Under all the authorities, such relation is that of equitable mortgagor and mortgagee. The mortgagor has only an equitable interest in the land, which, in case of default, may be cut off by a strict foreclosure of the contract. Button v. Schroyer, 5 Wis. 598; Baker v. Beach, 15 Wis. 99; Kimball v. Darling, 32 Wis. 675; London v. Burke, 36 Wis. 378; Northrup v. Trask, 39 Wis. 515.

The argument in support of the demurrer to the complaint goes upon the assumption that this is an action to enforce a forfeiture or right of re-entry for breach, of a condition subsequent, and hence cannot be maintained in equity. This we conceive to be an entire misapprehension of the nature and objects of the action. While the complaint contains averments and demands relief which might be proper in an action to enforce a forfeiture, yet the action is clearly one for a strict foreclosure of the land contract. The complaint contains, all the. averments essential to a valid complaint in such an action, and the appropriate relief is demanded therein. It may be that it shows a waiver by the plaintiff of the right to have the interest of defendants under it declared forfeited, but it does not show any waiver of its right to a strict foreclosure thereof.

The circuit court has power to do full justice between the parties. It may, in the exercise of its discretion, give the defendants further reasonable time to perform the contract, if it seems to the court equitable and just to do so, and it will exert its equitable powers in all proper ways to protect the appellant from wrong; She is confessedly in default. What more favorable terms can she reasonably demand?

By the Court. — The order of the circuit court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 N.W. 878, 81 Wis. 656, 1892 Wisc. LEXIS 72, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/superior-consolidated-land-co-v-nichols-wis-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack