Schoffen v. Landauer
| Decision Date | 08 April 1884 |
| Parties | SCHOFFEN AND ANOTHER v. LANDAUER AND OTHERS. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Kenosha county.Fish & Dodge, for respondents, Andrew Schoffen and another.
J. V. Quarles, for appellants, Max Landauer and others.
This action was brought by the respondents, husband and wife, against the appellants, to restrain the delivery of a sheriff's deed on an execution sale, and to set aside such sale. The ground upon which the action is based is the allegation that the property sold by the sheriff on execution was the homestead of the respondents at the time the same was sold. The evidence upon the trial shows the following facts: Ever since 1865, the respondent, Andrew Schoffen, has owned the south half of lots 4 and 5, and lot 6, in block 63, in the city of Kenosha. The south half of lots 4 and 5, and lot 6, constituted together a strip of land 14 rods long and 4 rods wide, extending east and west the whole length of block 63, lot 6 being the east six rods of the strip. In 1862 the respondent built a dwelling-house on the east end of lot 6, and lived in it with his family from that time down to 1869 or 1870, when he moved with his family into the buildings on the west end of the strip, being the south half of lots 4 and 5. Previous to that time the buildings on the west end of the strip had been occupied by tenants of the respondents as a store and saloon. In 1869 or 1870 he fitted it up for store, saloon, and dwelling place for himself and family, and moved into and occupied the same as a home for himself and family continuously from that time down to 1880; and after the sale on execution, which is sought to be set aside, and during that time the dwelling-house on the east end of the strip was rented and occupied by the tenants of the respondent as a dwelling-house, the respondent reserving the right, at times, to use the cellar under the dwelling to keep vegetables in, and the right to use the well on the east end of the lot. The defendants sold the whole of the strip upon executions against the respondent. The south half of lots 4 and 5 were sold as a separate parcel. Lot 6 was sold as a separate parcel, for the sum of $700. When the time for redemption expired, the sheriff made a deed to the purchaser for four rods in length off the east end of the strip, on which the small dwelling-house stands. The 10 rods of the west end of the strip, on which the store, saloon, and barn stood was not conveyed by the sheriff, and defendants make no claim to that part of the premises. The court set aside the sale and deed for the four rods off the east end of the strip of land, holding that such end was the respondent's homestead. From that judgment the defendants appeal to this court.
The real question presented by the case is whether the east end of the 14-rod strip of land, with the dwelling-house situated thereon, was the homestead of the respondents at the time the execution sale was made. The respondents rest their claim to hold the dwelling-house and the adjoining land on the east end of the lot as their homestead on the ground that they have claimed it to be such, although they have not lived on it for the ten years next preceding the sale, and have in fact had their home and lived in the buildings on the west end of the lot during all this time. The statute says that the homestead, when in a city, shall consist of a quanity of land not exceeding a quarter of an acre, and the dwelling-house thereon, and its appurtenances, owned and occupied by any resident of this state. Although there is a dwelling-house on the east end of the lot, which the respondents claim as their homestead, owned by them, yet it is very clear that it has not been their dwelling-house for nearly 10 years before the sale, and it also equally clear...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Krueger v. Groth
...defendants cannot have the benefit of two homesteads at one and the same time. Jarvais v. Moe, 38 Wis. 440, 446;Schoffen v. Landauer, 60 Wis. 334, 338, 19 N. W. 95; 13 R. C. L. p. 546; 29 C. J. p. 790. Although the constitutional and legislative provisions for such exemption have been stead......
-
Brokken v. Baumann
...will not be sufficient to preserve the homestead right. Donaldson v. Lamprey, 11 N.W. 121; Savings Bank v. Kennedy, 12 N.W. 479; Schoffen v. Landauer, 19 N.W. 95. J. Dwyer and Charles E. Wolfe, for respondents. Homestead statutes are to be construed liberally in favor of the exemption. King......
-
Adams v. Adams
...Hendricks, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 49; Stringer v. Swenson, 78 Tex. 550; Blum v. Rogers, 78 Tex. 530; Ashton v. Ingle, 20 Kan. 670; Schoffer v. Laundauer, 60 Wis. 334. (2) court erred in decreeing that the incumbrance upon the homestead should be paid out of the proceeds of the sale of the rest o......
-
Roche v. Bois
...part be considered a homestead and part not. This was originally laid down as the rule as to city and village property. Schoffen v. Landauer, 60 Wis. 334, 19 N.W. 95. Respondent claims that, since the amendment of the homestead statute limiting the amount of the exemption to $5,000, this ru......