Olsen v. Ortell
| Decision Date | 03 July 1953 |
| Citation | 59 N.W.2d 473,264 Wis. 468 |
| Parties | OLSEN et al. v. ORTELL et al. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Action begun September 22, 1952 by Milton J. Olsen and Sally A. Olsen, his wife, against Percival W. Ortell, Thomas F. Burman and Mary J. Burman, his wife, and Katherine A. Ortell and First National Bank and Trust Company of Racine, Wisconsin, a corporation, guardian of Katherine A. Ortell, incompetent.
The plaintiffs sold to the defendants Percival W. Ortell, Thomas F. Burman and Mary J. Burman, his wife, on a land contract, certain lands in Langlade county. Said defendants being in default, the plaintiffs now seek to recover the amount due upon said land contract, together with interest; or in default of such payment demand that said defendants and all persons claiming under them be forever barred and foeclosed of all rights in said lands. Katherine A. Ortell never occupied the lands as her homestead.
Defendant Katherine A. Ortell, by her guardian, demurred to the complaint on the grounds that it did not state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action against her. The court held that said defendant was a proper party to the action and overruled the demurrer. Katherine A. Ortell, by her guardian, appeals.
Foley & Foley and Rex Capwell, Jr., Racine, for appellants.
Arthur H. Strochan, Antigo, for respondents.
The facts alleged in the respondent's complaint and admitted by appellant's demurrer show that Katherine A. Ortell never had and that she does not claim to have an interest adverse to the plaintiffs arising out of the contract which is the basis of this litigation. She was in no sense of the word a party to the transaction, and as her husband's interest or rights under the contract never ripened into an estate of inheritance, his wife, Katherine Ortell, appellant, has no right or claim under the facts here that would make her either a necessary or a proper party to the action for strict foreclosure of a land contract not signed by her.
Appellant's husband joined with Thomas Burman and Mary J. Burman, his wife, in an agreement to purchase real estate. Under the terms of the contract, the buyers agreed to hold the land as tenants as sufferance, subject to be removed as tenants holding over by process whenever default occurred. The buyers were in default at the time the action was commenced.
The complaint does contain an allegation that the appellant has or claims to have some lien upon the property....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sipple v. Zimmerman
...bear the semblance of statements of facts. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. State, 173 Wis. 119, 180 N.W. 138; Olsen v. Ortell, 264 Wis. 468, 59 N.W.2d 473.' Jenkins v. State (1961), 13 Wis.2d 503, 507--508, 108 N.W.2d 924, The first question presented, then, is whether Lena Kraft, by sig......
-
Rank v. Lease Associates, Inc.
...39 Wis.2d 481, 489, 159 N.W.2d 706, 710; Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. State (1920), 173 Wis. 119, 180 N.W. 138; Olsen v. Ortell (1953), 264 Wis. 468, 59 N.W.2d 473; Jenkins v. State (1961), 13 Wis.2d 503, 108 N.W.2d 924.2 See generally, Sipple v. Zimmerman, supra, footnote 1.3 See Smi......
-
Szep v. Robinson
...drawn from such facts by the pleader, even though the conclusions bear the semblance of statements of fact.' See also Olsen v. Ortell, 264 Wis. 468, 59 N.W.2d 473.'2 To the same effect are Scholz v. Industrial Comm. (1954), 267 Wis. 31, 64 N.W.2d 204, 65 N.W.2d 1; and Employers Mut. Liabili......
-
CIR v. Callner, 13178-13180.
...no dower rights because their husbands had no legal or equitable title, merely a contract right to purchase, relying on Olsen v. Ortell, 1953, 264 Wis. 468, 59 N.W.2d 473 and Inglis v. Fohey, 1908, 136 Wis. 28, 116 N.W. In the Inglis case, a husband having a contract for purchase of land, o......