Kopmeier v. O'Neil
Decision Date | 28 November 1879 |
Parties | KOPMEIER v. O'NEIL, imp |
Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County.
The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice TAYLOR:
Order reversed.
For the appellant, there was a brief by John A. Wall, his attorney with Samuel Howard, of counsel, and oral argument by Mr Howard.
For the respondent, there was a brief by Joshua Stark and D. G Rogers, and oral argument by Mr. Stark.
In the case of Life Ins. Co. v. Neeves, 46 Wis. 147, 49 N.W. 832, this court decided that under chapter 143, Laws of 1877 (now sections 3162 to 3169, inclusive, R. S. 1878), no step can be taken for the sale of mortgaged premises after judgment until the expiration of one year from the date of the judgment, and that the term "sale," as used in said statute, was intended to embrace everything appertaining to the sale, including the publication of the notice of sale; but that any irregularity in this respect would be waived, unless an appeal was taken from the order confirming such sale.
Without discussing the question whether one year from the date of the judgment expired on the eighth day of November, 1878, so that a publication of the notice of sale would be good if made on the ninth of November, 1878, we do not think the proof, either by the sheriff's return or the affidavit of the foreman of the Sentinel, shows that it was published on the ninth day of November, 1878. In order to make the sale regular, it must have been published on that particular day or the publication would be insufficient. If made on any day earlier than the ninth of November, 1878, it would be too early, under the decision of this court above cited; and if made on any day later than that day, the notice would be short, or less than six weeks before the day of sale, and therefore void under the decision of this court in the case of Eaton v. Lyman, 33 Wis. 34. There is no clear proof that the first publication was made on the ninth day of November, 1878; and, the notice bearing date on the sixth, and, having been published in a daily paper, in the absence of proof to the contrary, it will be presumed that it was published on the sixth, especially as such presumption is not in conflict with either the sheriff's certificate or the affidavit of the printer.
The statements that the notice was published for six weeks, once in each week, next before the sale, or once in...
To continue reading
Request your trial