Wakeley v. Mohr

18 Wis. 321
Wisconsin Supreme Court·Decided June 15, 1864·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

By the Court,

DixoN, C. J.

A rebearing was granted in this case upon tbe point decided in Lain v. Cook, 15 Wis., 446, and not presented in tbe first argument, namely, that tbe tax deed set out in tbe complaint is void for tbe omission of the words “ as tbe fact is,” required by chapter 66, Laws of 1854. Counsel struggled to distinguish this case from Lain v. Cook, and to show that tbe recitals of tbe deed are equivalent in substance to tbe words used in tbe statute. It is bard, however, to struggle against tbe positive requirements of a statute, and we think tbe learned counsel felt tbe difficulty. Tbe deed contains no words of equivalent signification, and tbe cases are not distinguishable.

Order affirmed.

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

Wakeley v. Mohr, 18 Wis. 321 (Wis. 1864).

18 Wis. 321 (Wakeley v. Mohr) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Henry Holt & Co. v. Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co.
23 F. Supp. 302 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1938)
Seaverns v. Costello
71 P. 930 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1903)
Gilfillan v. Hobart
28 N.W. 222 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1886)
Hopkins v. Scott
86 Mo. 140 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1885)
Village of Momence v. Kendall
14 Ill. App. 229 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1884)