Shenners v. Pritchard,

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Writing for the CourtBARDEEN
Citation80 N.W. 458,104 Wis. 287
PartiesSHENNERS v. PRITCHARD ET AL.
Decision Date20 October 1899

104 Wis. 287
80 N.W. 458

SHENNERS
v.
PRITCHARD ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Oct. 20, 1899.


Appeal from circuit court, Columbia county; R. G. Siebecker, Judge.

Action by William H. Shenners against Mary Pritchard and another. There was a judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

On June 25, 1893, the defendants purchased of the C. Obrecht Land Company two lots,

[80 N.W. 459]

under a land contract, for which they agreed to pay $425,--$100 cash, and the balance in three equal annual payments, with 6 per cent. interest, payable semiannually, on the 15th days of January and July of each year. The contract was in the usual form of land contracts, and contained the following clauses deemed material to this litigation: “The party of the first part agrees to grade streets and lay sidewalks free of expense to party of the second part. Second. The said party of the first part hereby covenants and agrees that, if the aforesaid purchase price and interest shall be fully paid at the times and in the manner above specified, it will, within a reasonable time after demand, execute and deliver to the said parties of the second part, their heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns, a good and sufficient warranty deed in fee simple of the premises above described, free and clear of all legal liens and incumbrances, except the taxes herein agreed to be paid by the said parties of the second part. Third. And it is further distinctly agreed and understood by and between the parties hereto that, if the said parties of the second part shall fail to make any of the payments of purchase money above specified at the time and in the manner above specified, in such case this agreement shall henceforth be utterly void, and all payments thereon forfeited, subject to be revived and renewed by the act of the party of the first part, or the mutual agreement of both parties.” The defendants made the cash payment and paid interest to January 25, 1895, and no more, and neglected to pay the taxes for the year 1897. On May 5, 1898, the land company conveyed the premises described in the contract to plaintiff, by warranty deed, not mentioning the contract. June 10, 1898, the land company duly assigned the land contract to plaintiff, who brings this action thereon, at law, to recover the balance due from defendants. The answer admitted the making of the contract and failure to pay, and sets up fraud and misrepresentation on the part of the land company, and certain other matters not material at this time. On the trial the plaintiff offered in evidence the land contract mentioned, a warranty deed from the land company to him, an assignment to him of the land contract, and a tax receipt for the taxes of 1897, and rested. Thereupon the defendants moved the court to direct a verdict for defendants. This motion was granted on the ground that the provision in the contract as to a forfeiture rendered the contract a nullity, and that no action at law could be maintained thereon. From the judgment entered upon the verdict the plaintiff brings this appeal.

Fowler & McNamara, for appellant.

Lamoreux, Davison & Davison, for respondents.


BARDEEN, J. (after stating the facts).

According to the court's ruling, the provision in the land contract to the effect that, if the purchasers failed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 practice notes
  • Portner v. Tanner, 1060
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • July 17, 1923
    ...448; Morris v. Sliter, 1 Denio, 59; Harrington v. Higgins, 17 Wendell, 376; Meriden Co. v. Zingsen, 48 N.Y. 247; Shenners v. Pritchard, 80 N.W. 458; So. P. R. Co. v. Allen, 44 P. 796; Donovan v. Judson, 22 P. 682; Voight v. Fidelity Inv. Co., 96 P. 162; Reise v. Westfield, 105 P. 837; Reard......
  • Oconto Co. v. Bacon
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • October 19, 1923
    ...in the letters of July 7th and July 16th, the material parts of which are set out in the statement of facts. Under Shenners v. Pritchard, 104 Wis. 287, 80 N. W. 458, and Foster v. Lowe, 131 Wis. 54, 110 N. W. 829, it cannot be doubted that upon the breach of the conditions of a land contrac......
  • Kallenbach v. Lake Publications, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • May 10, 1966
    ...Co. v. Nichols (1892), 81 Wis. 656, 51 N.W. 878; Oconto Co. v. Bacon, supra, 181 Wis. p. 544, 195 N.W. 412; Shenners v. Pritchard (1899), 104 Wis. 287, 80 N.W. 458; 1942 Wisconsin Law Review 90, 95; 1958 Wisconsin Law Review 260, 278, 280; 1960 Wisconsin Law Review 379, 380; Beuscher, Farm ......
  • Jefferson Gardens, Inc. v. Terzan
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • November 6, 1934
    ...held by this court that a vendor under a land contract may sue at law for the recovery of money due thereunder. Shenners v. Pritchard, 104 Wis. 287, 80 N. W. 458;Foster v. Lowe, 131 Wis. 54, 110 N. W. 829;Collins v. Schmidt, 126 Wis. 227, 105 N. W. 671. While the Harris Case, supra, uses la......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
23 cases
  • Portner v. Tanner, 1060
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • July 17, 1923
    ...448; Morris v. Sliter, 1 Denio, 59; Harrington v. Higgins, 17 Wendell, 376; Meriden Co. v. Zingsen, 48 N.Y. 247; Shenners v. Pritchard, 80 N.W. 458; So. P. R. Co. v. Allen, 44 P. 796; Donovan v. Judson, 22 P. 682; Voight v. Fidelity Inv. Co., 96 P. 162; Reise v. Westfield, 105 P. 837; Reard......
  • Oconto Co. v. Bacon
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • October 19, 1923
    ...in the letters of July 7th and July 16th, the material parts of which are set out in the statement of facts. Under Shenners v. Pritchard, 104 Wis. 287, 80 N. W. 458, and Foster v. Lowe, 131 Wis. 54, 110 N. W. 829, it cannot be doubted that upon the breach of the conditions of a land contrac......
  • Kallenbach v. Lake Publications, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • May 10, 1966
    ...Co. v. Nichols (1892), 81 Wis. 656, 51 N.W. 878; Oconto Co. v. Bacon, supra, 181 Wis. p. 544, 195 N.W. 412; Shenners v. Pritchard (1899), 104 Wis. 287, 80 N.W. 458; 1942 Wisconsin Law Review 90, 95; 1958 Wisconsin Law Review 260, 278, 280; 1960 Wisconsin Law Review 379, 380; Beuscher, Farm ......
  • Jefferson Gardens, Inc. v. Terzan
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • November 6, 1934
    ...held by this court that a vendor under a land contract may sue at law for the recovery of money due thereunder. Shenners v. Pritchard, 104 Wis. 287, 80 N. W. 458;Foster v. Lowe, 131 Wis. 54, 110 N. W. 829;Collins v. Schmidt, 126 Wis. 227, 105 N. W. 671. While the Harris Case, supra, uses la......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT