TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Baker v. Beach

Baker v. Beach, 15 Wis. 99 (1862)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Wisconsin Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 15, 1862
Judges
Paine
Citations
15 Wis. 99
Headnotes
Where one enters into a written contract to sell and convey land to another upon the payment of certain sums, he is entitled, after a default in any snch payment, to a judgment foreclosing the rights of the vendee under the contract, unless the amount due is paid by a day fixed by the court; but not to a judgment directing a sale of the land to make the amount due, and requiring the vendee to pay any deficiency.
Summary
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Waushara County. In November, 1858, Baker entered into a written contract with Beach, by which the latter agreed to pay him for certain land in Waushara county, $200 in two equal payments, June 1st, 1860, and June 1st, 1861, with interest, &c.; and after such payments Baker was to give Beach a deed of the land. On default by Beach in the payment of part of the first in-stalment, this suit was brought to foreclose his equities, and obtain a sale of the lots to pay the amount due on the contract, and a personal judgment against Beach for any deficiency. Judgment was entered in accordance with the plaintiff’s demand. cited Button vs. Schroyer, 5 Wis., 598.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Paine

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

By the Court, Paine, J.

In Button vs. Schroyer, 5 Wis., 598 , this court held that in actions of this character, the judgment, instead of being for a sale of the property, should be, that unless the money due was paid in a specified time, the defendants should be barred of all equity of redemption.

This makes it necessary to reverse this judgment, and remand the cause with directions to enter judgment in accordance with that decision.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and cause remanded accordingly.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1876–1877: 11892–1893: 11898–1899: 21922–1923: 118762026peak 1898 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Church v. Smith39 Wis. 492 (1876)
  2. Oconto Co. v. Bacon195 N.W. 412 (Wis. 1923)
  3. Sievers v. Brown45 L.R.A. 642 (Or. 1899)
  4. Nelson v. Jacobs75 N.W. 406 (Wis. 1898)
  5. Superior Consolidated Land Co. v. Nichols51 N.W. 878 (Wis. 1892)

Most recent

  1. Oconto Co. v. Bacon195 N.W. 412 (Wis. 1923)
  2. Sievers v. Brown45 L.R.A. 642 (Or. 1899)
  3. Nelson v. Jacobs75 N.W. 406 (Wis. 1898)
  4. Superior Consolidated Land Co. v. Nichols51 N.W. 878 (Wis. 1892)
  5. Church v. Smith39 Wis. 492 (1876)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Button v. Schroyer, 5 Wis. 598 (1856) 33

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list