Van Dyke v. Wallace
Cases that cite this one
15 later published cases cite this decision.
- Bereth v. Sparks (7th Cir. 1931)
- Rascar, Inc. v. Bank of Oregon (Wis. Ct. App. 1978)
- Thomas v. Department of Taxation (Wis. 1947)
- Charnesky v. Urban (7th Cir. 1943)
- Cortte v. Tolzman (Wis. 1939)
- Montello Granite Co. v. Industrial Commission (Wis. 1938)
- Campbell v. Mickelson (Wis. 1938)
- Schwemer v. Citizen's Loan & Investment Co. (Wis. 1937)
- King v. Riverside Alfalfa Growers' Ass'n (9th Cir. 1932)
- Nitka v. Nitka (Wis. 1932)
- In re Baumgartner (7th Cir. 1931)
- National Bond & Investment Co. v. Schmidt (7th Cir. 1931)
- Hazelwood v. Olinger Building Department Stores, Inc. (Wis. 1931)
- Hickcox v. Schmidt (Wis. 1929)
- McGovern v. Eckhart (Wis. 1929)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The bill was filed to correct a deed," alleging a mutual mistake in that certain sewer taxes should have been recited and excepted in the warranty-clause. Plaintiffs, husband and wife, had decree. Defendants have appealed.
The question is one of fact arising upon a flat contradiction in testimony. Evidence of plaintiffs is to the effect that defendants were to pay such tax and that this matter was inadvertently omitted in making the deed. Evidence of defendants is to the effect that plaintiffs were to pay it and that there was no mistake in that regard. Evidence of value is in equally flat contradiction. Circumstances aid decision somewhat. Defendant William Wallace gave unsatisfactory testimony and was admonished by the court, in effect, to answer certain questions frankly and directly. The taxes were more than $5,000. Plaintiffs’ equity in the property — the difference between the sale price and the amount due from them as vendees in the land contract — was much less than the amount of the tax.
The trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their testimony. We are not persuaded that his decision should be disturbed.
Decree affirmed, with costs to plaintiffs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.