Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

21 Wis. 401

McFarlane v. Cushman

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1867

Wisconsin Supreme Court · decided 1867-01-15

In 1861, Cushman executed, to McFarlane a penal bond, conditioned to pay the latter $245.70, with, interest from date, when McFarlane should perfect his title to certain lands flowed by Cushman, so that the title thereto should be “formally or informally adjudged to be perfect by the judge of the circuit court for said county, upon production to him of an abstract thereof, duly certified by the register of deeds and other officers of said county, and notice to said Cushman,…

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1867-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently March 1916

8 state decisions

50186718701880189019001910decided

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.

¶1There is no error in the proceedings or judgment. The former judgment is no bar, because the condition of the bond had not then been complied with. The plaintiff had not then produced before the referee the evidence upon which the referee was authorized to act, and there was no money due to the plaintiff by the terms of the bond itself. McFarlane v. Cushman, 19 Wis., 357. It was an action prematurely instituted, and judgment was rendered against the plaintiff for that reason. Bull v. Hopkins, 7 Johns., 22.

¶2There was no error in rejecting the judgment roll and record in the case of Lilburn v. Milne, and the other evidence offered by the defendant, because the defendant had, by the condition of his bond, fixed the kind of evidence upon which the referee was to act, and his decision was final. The only question open was as to whether the condition had been performed by the production before the referee of the evidence called for. Of this we think there can be no doubt. The abstract produced was clearly such as the parties intended, and fully justified the action of .the referee.

¶3The submission to the referee, conceding it to have been in the nature of a submission to an arbitrator, and as such revocable, was not revoked. A submission by deed can be revoked only by deed. Brown v. Leavitt, 26 Me., 251; Van Ant*405werp v. Stewart, 8 Johns., 125. The attempted revocation was by the attorney, and by parol.

¶4By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.

/21/wis/401 · .json · Public domain