Jacobson v. Bentzler

• Decision Date: 20 March 1906
• Citation: 127 Wis. 566,107 N.W. 7
• Parties: JACOBSON v. BENTZLER.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

127 Wis. 566

107 N.W. 7

JACOBSON

v.BENTZLER.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

March 20, 1906.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Milwaukee County; Orren T. Williams, Judge.

Action by Charles L. Jacobson against William O. Bentzler. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Plaintiff alleges that he loaned and advanced defendant the sum of $1,000, and that defendant agreed to repay the sum on demand. He claims that demand has been made, and that no part of the sum has been paid. Defendant denies that a loan was ever made, and alleges that he conveyed certain real estate to the plaintiff in consideration of the $1,000. He further alleges that the deed was executed and delivered upon an express agreement in writing that upon repayment of the sum, and provided he had paid the taxes levied on the property, he might demand a reconveyance, but that in case of failure to pay such taxes then the contract was to be null and void. He alleges that he has not paid the taxes, and that the right to demand a reconveyance no longer exists, and he asserts that plaintiff has not offered to reconvey. The evidence on the trial shows that all of the transactions involved took place on Sunday, including the delivery of the check for $1,000, the signing and delivery of the written agreement, and the delivery of the deed. The only act not positively shown to have taken place on Sunday refers to the acknowledgment and the recording of the deed, and this is left in uncertainty by the statements of the plaintiff. At the conclusion of plaintiff's evidence, defendant's motion for a nonsuit was granted by the court. A motion for a new trial was denied, and judgment for costs was rendered for defendant. This is an appeal from such judgment.J. A. Eggen, for appellant.

Christian Doerfler and McElroy, Eschweiler & Wetzler, for respondent.

SIEBECKER, J. (after stating the facts).

The evidence of the plaintiff shows that the transactions, on which relief is sought, took place between the parties on Sunday. It is undisputed that plaintiff on this day delivered to, and that defendant received from him, a check for $1,000; that the written agreement expressing the conditions of the loan were executed and delivered on Sunday; and that the deed, which had been signed by the grantor, was handed to plaintiff on the same day. The only part of the transaction which occurred thereafter was that the defendant had the deed acknowledged and left for record, with directions to the register of deeds to mail it to the plaintiff. The time of payment of the check and the acknowledgment and recording of the deed are relied on as showing that the alleged loan was not made on Sunday: Firstly, upon the ground that the alleged loan to defendant was not made until...