Luebke v. Salzwedel
| Decision Date | 17 June 1914 |
| Docket Number | No. 159.,159. |
| Citation | 147 N.W. 831,157 Wis. 601 |
| Parties | LUEBKE v. SALZWEDEL. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Brown County; Samuel D. Hastings, Judge.
Action by Carl Luebke against Emma Salzwedel. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.E. V. Werner and P. J. Winter, both of Shawano, for appellant.
Llewellyn Cole, of Clintonville, for respondent.
This suit was brought by the plaintiff against his daughter, the defendant, to cancel a recorded deed of certain land belonging to plaintiff, which deed was executed at plaintiff's request by plaintiff's brother, from whom a deed was due to plaintiff, to the defendant as grantee, but never delivered, and also for the purpose of quieting plaintiff's title. It is a family quarrel, and there are charges and countercharges of fraud freely made involving plaintiff, defendant, and other members of the Luebke family.
The learned circuit judge found that the plaintiff was, during this period of strife and long before, in possession of the land in question, and that he got title by deed from his first wife, who thereafter died. Plaintiff married again, and with his second wife conveyed the land to plaintiff's brother. His second wife secured a divorce, and plaintiff, contemplating making a contract for his support and maintenance with his daughter Emma, who is defendant, procured a warranty deed from his brother running to this daughter, but left it in the custody of another daughter for safe-keeping, with instructions not to deliver it. The last-mentioned daughter fraudulently, and without the knowledge or consent of plaintiff, delivered the deed to Emma, who, without plaintiff's knowledge or consent, had it recorded, and then refused to enter into any agreement with plaintiff for his support and maintenance. Plaintiff's brother then executed another deed of the land directly to plaintiff. There is evidence to support these findings, and the conclusion based thereon that the plaintiff is owner and that the deed to Emma is void for want of delivery and a cloud on plaintiff's title and should be annulled follows legitimately. We cannot say these findings are against the clear preponderance of the evidence.
[1] It is argued that the plaintiff caused the deed which he and his second wife executed to plaintiff's brother and the deed from the latter to Emma to be executed for the purpose of defrauding this wife in the divorce suit soon to be instituted, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leeper v. Kurth
...defraud creditors, else the maxim does not apply. 21 C. J. 184, sec. 166; Slegmann v. Weeke, 279 Mo. 131, 214 S.W. 134; Tubeke v. Salzwedel, 15 Wis. 601, 147 N.W. 831. The evidence wholly fails to show that appellant knew he had an interest in the land in controversy. Utterly fails to show ......
-
Leeper v. Kurth, 37967.
...else the maxim does not apply. 21 C.J. 184, sec. 166; Slegmann v. Weeke, 279 Mo. 131, 214 S.W. 134; Tubeke v. Salzwedel, 15 Wis. 601, 147 N.W. 831. (4) The evidence wholly fails to show that appellant knew he had an interest in the land in controversy. Utterly fails to show he intended to c......
-
McClellan v. McCauley
... ... also, Block v. Darling, 140 U.S. 234, 11 S.Ct. 832, ... 35 L.Ed. 476, and also the case of Luebke v ... Salzwedel, 157 Wis. 601, 147 N.W. 831, wherein it is ... held that the inequitable conduct of a plaintiff in other and ... different ... ...
-
Lebedinsky v. Akhmedov, No. 2008AP780 (Wis. App. 9/29/2009)
...the property—was the fruit of Lebedinsky's own wrongful course of conduct. See id. ¶ 11 We are also unpersuaded that Luebke v. Salzwedel, 157 Wis. 601, 147 N.W. 831 (1914), compels a different result. In Luebke, the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld a judgment canceling a recorded deed where a......