Fred Miller Brewing Co. v. Knebel

Citation168 Wis. 587,171 N.W. 69
PartiesFRED MILLER BREWING CO. v. KNEBEL ET AL.
Decision Date04 March 1919
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Circuit Court, Milwaukee County; Oscar M. Fritz, Judge.

Mortgage foreclosure action by the Fred Miller Brewing Company against Henry P. Knebel and others, in which B. C. Hoppe was appointed receiver. From two orders disallowing credit claimed by the receiver, for payment of taxes, he appeals. On motion of Henry Knebel and another to dismiss the appeal. Appeal dismissed.

The appellant herein was receiver in this mortgage foreclosure action.

Pursuant to the judgment, the premises were sold on December 24, 1917. On January 4, 1918, the receiver paid out of funds then in his hands the city and county taxes for 1914. Upon the hearing on his account the circuit court, upon objections being interposed thereto, determined that certain items claimed by him, including those for such taxes, should be disallowed and he be required to account therefor, and a written order to that effect was made on March 6, 1918. Notice of entry of such order was duly and immediately served.

On April 30th, upon receiver's application, by an order to show cause of April 24th, to partially modify the aforesaid order of March 6th, the court made an order changing a portion of the order of March 6th so that it now recites that the sale of December 24th was made subject to “certain” of the taxes then outstanding, instead of “all” the outstanding taxes, and then specifically denied the motion to modify so far as it concerned the disallowance of the credit claimed by him for the payment of the taxes. Exceptions were filed by the receiver to these orders of March 6th and April 30th. Due notice of the entry of the latter order was served on the respective parties. On May 6th the receiver gave notice of appeal to this court from so much of the order of March 6th as denied him credit for the payment of the taxes aforesaid and from the order of April 30th. The defendants Henry P. and Emma Knebel, who were the mortgagors of said real estate and the respondents herein, have moved to dismiss such appeal.

Quarles, Spence & Quarles, of Milwaukee (J. V. Quarles, of Milwaukee, of counsel), for appellant Hoppe.

Curtis & Mock, of Milwaukee, for appellee Henry P. Knebel.

Lenicheck, Boesel & Wickhem, of Milwaukee (Frank T. Boesel, of Milwaukee, of counsel), for appellee Emma Knebel.

ESCHWEILER, J. (after stating the facts as above).

[1] For more than 30 days after service upon him of notice of the entry of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Harris v. Reivitz, 86-0324
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
    • October 22, 1987
    ...752, 754-55 (1972) substantially relaxed the prior rule recognized in the Page 53 cases it relied upon. Fred Miller B. Co. v. Knebel, 168 Wis. 587, 171 N.W. 69 (1919); Hogensen v. Prahl, 190 Wis. 214, 208 N.W. 867 (1926); and Kellogg-Citizens [142 Wis.2d 89] Nat. Bank v. Francois, 240 Wis. ......
  • Barneveld State Bank v. Petersen
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • April 10, 1975
    ...the only issues raised by the motion were disposed of by the original judgment or order. . . .' (Citing Fred Miller Brewing Co. v. Knebel (1919), 168 Wis. 587, 588, 589, 171 N.W. 69; Hogensen v. Prahl (1926), 190 Wis. 214, 218, 208 N.W. 867, and Kellogg-Citizens Nat. Bank v. Francois (1942)......
  • Edward E. Gillen Co. v. John H. Parker Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • March 4, 1919
  • Kellogg-Citizens Nat. Bank of Green Bay v. Francois
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • May 5, 1942
    ...Steenwyck v. Miller, 1864, 18 Wis. 320, Skrinsrud's Will (Skinsrud v. Schwenn), 1914, 158 Wis. 142, 147 N.W. 370;Fred Miller B. Co. v. Knebel, 1919, 168 Wis. 587, 171 N.W. 69:Hogensen v. Prahl, 1926, 190 Wis. 214, 208 N.W. 867. The alleged error of which the appealing defendant complains is......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT