Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

21 Wis. 273

McGlone v. Prosser

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 15, 1866

Wisconsin Supreme Court · decided 1866-06-15

Ejectment Tbe complaint avers “that under and by virtue of a certificate duly issued, executed and acknowledged according to law by the commissioners of tbe school and university lands of the state of Wisconsin, dated tbe 20th day of September, 1850,” one Bartholomew McGlone, late of said county, deceased, was at the time of his death the owner and in lawful possession of the premises.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1866-06-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently June 1933

3 state decisions

1018661870188018901900191019201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Dixon, C. J.

¶1The plaintiffs sue upon their equitable right— the right given them by the statute, as the holders of the certificate, to maintain ejectment and other actions with respect to the land therein described. R. S., ch. 28, sec. 51. It is therefore a suit upon the statute. In pleading upon a statute, an exception in the general clause must be stated and negatived, so as to show that the party relying upon the general clause is not *274within the exception. 1 Chitty’s Pl., 223; Vavasour v. Ormrod, 6 B. & C., 430 (13 E. C. L., 225); Smith v. Moore, 6 Greenl., 277. The statute contains this exception — part of the general clause: “ unless such certificate shall have become void by forfeiture so that, notwithstanding the general averment that the plaintiffs own the certificate and are entitled to the possession of the premises under it, it still does not appear from the complaint that they have any right of action upon the statute. The certificate may have become void by forfeiture.

¶2As the exception is not noticed and negatived in the complaint, no cause of action is shown, and the demurrer, for this reason, was properly sustained.

¶3By the Court — Order affirmed.

/21/wis/273 · .json · Public domain