Reburg v. Lang

• Decision Date: 13 January 1942
• Citation: 1 N.W.2d 759,239 Wis. 381
• Parties: REBURG v. LANG.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

239 Wis. 381

1 N.W.2d 759

REBURG

v.LANG.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Jan. 13, 1942.

Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Forest County; Arold F. Murphy, Judge.

Affirmed.

Action begun September 28, 1939, by Frank Reburg against Sigfrid Lang, also known as Johan Sigfrid Johanson, to secure an exemption of plaintiff's homestead from the lien of a prior judgment in favor of Lang. Judgment was in plaintiff's favor and defendant appeals.

Plaintiff seeks to establish his homestead rights in certain lands free and clear of all debts, and particularly the lien of a judgment in favor of defendant. The case was tried to the court. The findings of fact are that the property where plaintiff resides is of the value of $1,000; that on October 21, 1937, Lang recovered a judgment against plaintiff for $1,388.98 and costs; that on August 11, 1939, plaintiff demanded in writing of Lang that he execute and deliver a recordable release of such lien of judgment on said homestead; that no release was given; and that a lis pendens was duly filed and this action begun. The court's conclusions of law were that plaintiff have judgment establishing the described property as his homestead; that the lien of the judgment of Lang was not and is not a lien against said homestead; and that Lang be barred from having or making any claim thereto under said judgment.

John H. Sweberg, of Rhinelander, and Rex M. Smith, of Antigo, for appellant.

Lehner & Lehner, Adolph P. Lehner, and Howard W. Eslien, all of Oconto Falls, for respondent.

FAIRCHILD, Justice.

Appellant came to this country and worked on the farm of respondent. There was an indefinite assurance or promise that respondent would deed his farm to appellant. After appellant had worked for respondent for upwards of three years, differences having arisen between them, appellant began an action for the specific performance of what he alleged was a contract. Specific performance was denied by the judgment in that action granted in October, 1937. But it was decreed that appellant was to have the value of the services performed together with interest and costs, and that the judgment was to be a specific lien on the premises. It is the lien of that judgment from which respondent seeks to relieve his homestead.

There is no bill of exceptions and the findings support the judgment entered below. Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Madson, 202 Wis. 271, 276, 232 N.W. 525;Parke, Austin & Lipscomb v. Sexauer, 204 Wis. 415, ...