Smith v. Dragert

Decided March 18, 1884

Wisconsin Supreme Court · decided 1884-03-18

The action is ejectment. The complaint is in the form required by statute. The answer contains only a general denial and a claim of the benefit of several statutes of limItation therein specified. On the trial before the court (a jury having been waived) the plaintiff proved title in fee to the lands claimed, through and under a patent from the United States. The defendant admitted that when the action was commenced he claimed title to such lands.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently September 1885

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1884-03-18

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Eton, J.

¶1The answer alleges no facts upon which to base the defense of any statute of limitations. lienee, within the rule established in Morgan v. Bishop, 56 Wis., 284, and Paine v. Comstock, 57 Wis., 159, that defense is not available to the defendant. It was error, therefore, to reject the testimony offered by plaintiff to impeach the tax deeds under Avhich the defendant claims. Because such testimony was improperly rejected there must he another trial.

¶2By the Court.— Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.