Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

56 Wis. 30

Olson v. Paul

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided October 31, 1882

Wisconsin Supreme Court · decided 1882-10-31

<p>FORECLOSURE oe Mortgage. Filing notice of lis pendens.</p> <p>A notice of the pendency of an action to foreclose a mortgage, though duly filed, is inoperative before the filing of the complaint: and judgment in the action cannot be entered until twenty days after the complaint is filed.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1882-10-31

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently December 1929

3 state decisions

1018821890190019101920decided

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 →

LyoN, J.

¶1The action was brought to have a deed of land, absolute on its face, executed by the plaintiff to defendant, adjudged a mortgage, and to have the same canceled, for the reason that the condition upon which it was given had been fully performed by the plaintiff. The.answer admits the deed was given as security for the performance of certain conditions by the plaintiff, denies performance, and contains a counterclaim for its foreclosure as a mortgage. When the cause was called for trial, the plaintiff discontinued his action. The cause was then tried on the counterclaim and *31reply, and resulted in a judgment for defendant of foreclosure and sale. Notice of pendency of the action was filed in the office of the register of deeds, by the defendant, more than twenty days before judgment, but the answer was not filed in the court until the judgment was entered. The plaintiff appeals from the foreclosure judgment. Counsel for defendant admits that the filing of notice of the pendency of the action was ineffectual because the answer was not filed twenty days before judgment, and hence very properly concedes that the judgment must be reversed for that reason. See R. S., p. 823, sec. 3187.

¶2Counsel for plaintiff asks that the cause be remanded for a new trial. On a proper showing the circuit court is at liberty to grant a new trial, but this court is not sufficiently advised in the premises to order one.

¶3By the Court.— The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause will be remanded for further proceedings according to law.

/56/wis/30 · .json · Public domain