Garlie v. Rowe
| Decision Date | 07 November 1928 |
| Citation | 221 N.W. 749,197 Wis. 257 |
| Parties | GARLIE ET AL. v. ROWE ET AL. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a portion of a judgment of the Circuit Court for Eau Claire County; James Wickham, Circuit Judge. Reversed.
Action begun April 7, 1926, by Ole L. Garlie and Carrie Garlie against Bruce Rowe, Augusta Rowe, and others to set aside and cancel a mortgage purported to have been executed by the plaintiffs to the defendants, Rowe. From a judgment entered May 23, 1927, dismissing plaintiffs' complaint, the plaintiffs appeal.
The mortgage here in question by its terms covered the homestead of the plaintiffs. The plaintiff Ole Garlie testified that he signed the mortgage and left it in the possession of one Sorlie, since deceased, who directed him to have his wife, Carrie Garlie, come to his office to sign the mortgage. The wife testified that before she went to the office to sign the mortgage, Mr. Sorlie telephoned to her that the deal was off, and that she never went to his office and never signed the mortgage.
The court found that both of the plaintiffs executed the mortgage and that it was a valid and lawful lien against the homestead of the plaintiffs.Bundy, Beach & Holland, of Eau Claire, for appellants.
Fred Arnold, of Eau Claire, for respondents.
Section 235.01 of the Statutes provides that--
“No mortgage * * * by a married man of his homestead, exempt by law from execution, * * * without his wife's consent, evidenced by her act of joining in the * * * mortgage, * * * shall be valid or of any effect whatever.”
This homestead, worth less than $5,000, was by law exempt from execution. Section 272.20 of the Statutes.
[1][2] The plaintiff Carrie Garlie denied under oath upon the witness stand that she ever wrote what purports to be her signature upon the mortgage. The record is barren of any proof to contradict this positive evidence on the part of Mrs. Garlie. Of the two persons who signed the mortgage as witnesses, Mr. Sorlie is dead and the other witness had no independent recollection that he ever witnessed any signature of Mrs. Garlie. He did not remember that she was there at the time when Mr. Garlie signed the mortgage and when he signed as a witness.
Several genuine signatures of Mrs. Garlie are in the record. But there is no evidence of a comparison of these signatures with the questioned signature. No handwriting expert was called by either side. This court has the same opportunity to compare these signatures...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Molay's Estate, In re
...maker and the accommodated party can be shown by parol. Perry v. Riske, supra, 2 Wis.2d p. 384, 86 N.W.2d 429; Garlie v. Rowe (1928), 197 Wis. 257, 261, 221 N.W. 749, 223 N.W. In the event of an attempt by the executor to claim contribution from Sue Molay, a contingency sought to be avoided......
-
State Bank of Drummond v. Christophersen
...property. Glinski v. Sheldon, 88 Wis.2d 509, 276 N.W.2d 815 (1979); Wangen v. Leum, 46 Wis.2d 60, 174 N.W.2d 266 (1970); Garlie v. Rowe, 197 Wis. 257, 221 N.W. 749, 223 N.W. 93 In Glinski, we also held that the legislatively enacted public policy barring the conveyance of homestead property......
-
Perry v. Riske
...connection with the defense of want of consideration issuing to Delwin A. Riske in exchange for the note. As said in Garlie v. Rowe, 1928, 197 Wis. 257, 261, 221 N.W. 749, 223 N.W. 'The want of consideration is a question that is always open to investigation.' Parol evidence was admissible ......
-
Vogel's Estate, In re
...against the claimant because the claimant is not a holder in due course. Sheldon v. Blackman, 188 Wis. 4, 205 N.W. 486; Garlie v. Rowe, 197 Wis. 257, 221 N.W. 749, 223 N.W. 93; Schwenker v. Johnson, 198 Wis. 300, 224 N.W. 117; In re Estate of Smith, 226 Wis. 556, 277 N.W. 141; In re Estate ......