Zimmer v. Pauley
| Decision Date | 08 February 1881 |
| Citation | 8 N.W. 219,51 Wis. 282 |
| Parties | ZIMMER AND WIFE v. PAULEY. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Clark county.
The appellants were married in 1872, and lived together as husband and wife in a house on a lot in the village of Humbird, Clark county, Wisconsin, and occupied the same as a homestead from 1872 to April 10, 1877. March 16, 1877, the plaintiff Phillip and one Nicholas Kramer entered into an agreement in writing with Louisa Randall, agreeing to purchase certain brewery lots, with a dwelling-house and brewery thereon, at or near Augusta, in Eau Claire county, for which they agreed to pay $2,000 in four equal annual instalments, with interest, and with provisions to turn the same into a tenancy in case of non-performance, and which contract was made on the part of Phillip with the intention of learning his boys to manufacture beer. About April 10, 1877, the plaintiff Phillip rented his homestead in Humbird to a tenant, and moved with his family into the dwelling-house on the brewery lots at Augusta, and with Kramer engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling beer thereon. It appears that the plaintiff Phillip voted at the town and village elections at Augusta in the spring of 1878, and also offered to vote there in the fall of 1877. Prior to June 5, 1878, Kramer left, and thereupon, and on June 5, 1878, Phillip surrendered to Mrs. Randall the contract, and all interest of the second parties therein, and in consideration therefor she discharged and surrendered a mortgage given to her by Phillip and wife on the house and lot at Humbird as security for the first payment on the contract, and also released him and Kramer from all further obligations under the contract; and the same was done with the intention on the part of said Phillip of returning to and occupying his house at Humbird and commencing the shoemaker's trade. About July 2, 1878, Phillip notified his tenant at Humbird that he must get another house. About the time of the surrender of the contract, and at the request of Mrs. Randall, Phillip consented to remain with his family at the brewery until fall, in order that he might take care of his patch of corn and garden. About the middle of August, 1878, Mrs. Zimmer took a bedstead and some clothing for a bed and some chairs on a wagon to Humbird, and put them in one of the rooms of their house, which she and a child who went with her occupied for three or four days, and then returned with the child to her family at Augusta. August 27, 1878, a judgment was recovered against Phillip and in favor of the defendant, and August 29, 1878, a transcript thereof was filed and docketed in Clark county. Phillip continued to live with his family at Augusta and sell beer until September 29, 1878, when they all moved to Humbird, and at once went into and occupied their former homestead, which they have continued to occupy ever since. In 1879 an execution was issued on the judgment, and levied upon the house and lot so occupied by them at Humbird, and the same were sold thereon to the defendant, who received the usual certificate of sale; and this action is brought to remove the same as a cloud upon the title. The only defence is that the premises were not the homestead of the plaintiffs at the time of filing and docketing the judgment in Clark county.R. J. MacBride and S. U. Pinney, for appellants.
Levi W. Vilas and James O'Neill, for respondent.
The law, as it stood prior to the Revision and while the plaintiffs lived upon the brewery lot at Augusta, was such that they could not acquire a homestead right therein which would be exempt, for the reason that Phillip was only a tenant in common with Kramer, and did not hold in severalty. West v. Ward, 26 Wis. 599; Russell v. Lennon, 59 Wis. 570. This, therefore, is not a case of a choice between two homesteads. It is admitted that the plaintiffs had no homestead...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coury v. Prot
...the rights of third persons acquired in the interim between the loss of the old and the acquisition of the new. See Zimmer v. Pauley, 51 Wis. 282, 8 N.W. 219, 221 (1881) (where overt acts by plaintiff supported redemption of possibly abandoned homestead just prior to the date of judgment ag......
-
Van Woert v. Modern Woodmen of America
... ... Wilson, 76 Neb. 344, 107 N.W ... The ... plaintiff's proposed amendment to the complaint should ... have been allowed. Zimmer v. Pauley, 51 Wis. 282, 8 ... N.W. 220; Johnson v. Tucker, 136 Wis. 505, 128 Am ... St. Rep. 1097, 117 N.W. 1003; J. I. Case Threshing Mach ... ...
-
Anderson v. Anderson Tooling, Inc.
...at liberty to change homesteads by sale, or to remove for temporary convenience, without forfeiting the exemption. Zimmer v. Pauley , 51 Wis. 282, 285, 8 N.W. 219[ ] (1881).Moore v. Krueger , 179 Wis. 2d 449, 457-58, 507 N.W.2d 155 (Ct. App. 1993).7 We further note that phone records in the......
-
Rumage v. Gullberg
...policy and spirit of the law so far as homesteads are concerned are to secure them to the debtor and his family.'" Zimmer v. Pauley, 51 Wis. 282, 286, 8 N.W. 219 (1881) (quoting Krueger, 37 Wis. at Analysis ¶ 18. Rumage contends that a docketed judgment is a lien on homestead property owned......