Bailey v. Steve

Decided December 13, 1887

Wisconsin Supreme Court · decided 1887-12-13

The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Cassoday: It appears from the record that December 26, 1885, John Steve,… Held: in effect, that the defendant’s interest in the notes and mortgage was not exempt, and ordered the plaintiff’s debt to be satisfied from the same, and for that purpose a receiver was appointed, etc. Upon affidavits and the record, the circuit court ordered the plaintiff to show cause why such order of the commissioner should not. be…

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently June 1907

1 state decisions

Relies on Scofield v. Hopkins · Binzel v. Grogan · Hewett v. Allen

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1887-12-13

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Cassoday, J.

¶1The only question presented is whether the defendant’s interest in the notes and mortgage, which Avere “proceeds derived from” the sale of his homestead. Avas exempt for the period of “ two years,” as provided by sec. 2983, R. S. It certainly Avas exempt if “ held with'the *318intention to procure another homestead therewith,” during that period. Ibid. The same is true if intended to be used during that time in. completing or improving such new homestead. We think the circuit court was justified in finding that such interest was held with such intent. The case comes squarely within the spirit and reasons of the repeated decisions of this court, which need not be again repeated. Hewett v. Allen, 54 Wis. 583; Scofield v. Hopkins, 61 Wis. 370; Binzel v. Grogan, 67 Wis. 147.

¶2By the Court.— The order of the circuit court is affirmed.