Fitzgerald v. Buffalo County
Decision Date | 05 May 1953 |
Citation | 264 Wis. 62,58 N.W.2d 457 |
Parties | FITZGERALD, v. BUFFALO COUNTY et al. |
Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Edwin Larkin, Eau Claire, for appellant.
Belmont H. Schlosstein, Cochrane, for respondents.
By the covenant in the deed to pay the mortgages plaintiff bound herself to pay them and thereby assumed a primary liability. Martin v. C. Aultman & Co., 80 Wis. 150, 49 N.W. 749. She did not pay as a volunteer--she did no more than she had agreed to do. There was no need for her to act to protect her own interests. There was no agreement that she should have security for her payment. She was not a surety for the payment of the mortgage debt. Under those circumstances she is not entitled to subrogation. Murphy v. Baldwin, 159 Wis. 567, 150 N.W. 957. Bank of Baraboo v. Prothero, 215 Wis. 552, 255 N.W. 126.
The fact that plaintiff knew nothing about the county's lien when the conveyance was executed to her and when she paid the mortgages does not avail her. She was chargeable with constructive notice of its existence. Martin v. C. Aultman & Co., supra.
Plaintiff urges that we read out of Conner v. Welch, 51 Wis. 431, 8 N.W. 260, 262, a declaration supporting her claim to the right to be subrogated. In that case the plaintiff, holder of a fifth mortgage upon real estate, obtained a deed to the property. The court found that as a part of the transaction he had covenanted to pay two prior mortgages. After paying them he discovered the existence of a subordinate judgment lien obtained by one Stein. He demanded that the discharged mortgages be reinstated and that he be subrogated to the rights of the mortgagees whom he had paid. His claim was rejected.
An expression is contained in the opinion which plaintiff construes as indicating that the result might have been different had the court considered the matter as one calling for application of the doctrine...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Universal Forest Products v. Morris Forest Product
...it is to pay, or in one claiming under him against one who is secondarily liable, or not liable at all." Fitzgerald v. Buffalo County, 264 Wis. 62, 63, 58 N.W.2d 457, 458 (Wis.1953). However, because "`equity does not lend itself to the application of black letter rules,' subrogation `depen......
-
Ohio Cas. Group of Ins. Companies v. Royal-Globe Ins. Companies
...Mutual Insurance Co. of Washington, D. C. v. Maryland Casualty Co., (1963) 136 Ind.App. 35, 187 N.E.2d 575; Fitzgerald v. Buffalo Co., (1953) 264 Wis. 62, 58 N.W.2d 457. However, subrogation is an equitable right and will be granted when an equitable result will be obtained. Therefore, a pe......
-
Klemens v. Badger Mut. Ins. Co. of Milwaukee
...Subrogation is not allowed in favor of one who makes a payment on a primary obligation, being under duty so to do. (See Fitzgerald v. Buffalo County, 264 Wis. 62 ; * * We concur in the trial court's decision that,-- 'The plaintiff is not entitled to relief against the defendant. She is barr......
-
St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. Rock-Tenn Co.
...the payment of that debt. It does not, however, permit a party that pays its own debt to recover from another. See Fitzgerald v. Buffalo County, , 58 N.W.2d 457 (Wis.1953). In the present case NAB was directly liable to Heil for the payment of $55,288.13. Thus, NAB does not have a subrogati......