Case ID: wis_25/html/0477-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Cole, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jensen vs. Weinlander.
    
      Notice of public sale — Error in date.
    
    A notice of a public sale of laud (by tbe commissioners of school and university lands), dated September 15,1861, stated that the sale would take place on the 6th of December, “1761.” Held, that the mistake could not mislead, and did not invalidate the sale.
    APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Calumet County.
    The action below was ejectment by Weinlander against Jensen. Weinlander claimed under a sale made by the commissioners of school and university lands on the 6th of December; 1861, and pnt in evidence the notice of snch sale, the certificate of the sale to himself, and a patent of the land thereafter issued to him by said commissioners, based upon snch sale. The land had been mortgaged to the state to secure a loan from the school fund, and forfeited. Jensen objected to the admission in evidence of the notice, certificate and patent, on account of a defect in the notice, the nature of which will fully appear from the opinion. The objection was overruled. Judgment for Weinlander; and Jensen sued out his writ of error.
    
      Pellcer & Weisbrod, for plaintiff in error:
    To foreclose the mortgage under, R. S. ch. 28, §§ 105, and 106, the notice must state that the sale would take place on a day certain. This provision was mandatory. 9 Wis. 11. It was necessary that the statute be strictly pursued. Thatcher v. Powell, 6 Wheat. 119 ; Bloom v. Burdiclc, 1 Hill, 130-141 ; 10 Wis. 563 ; 19 id. 459 ; 4 Denio, 104 ; 9 Barb. 278; 11 id. 191 ; 13 id. 137; 20 id. 18 ; 5 Johns. Ch. 35-42 ; 25 N. Y. 320. The day mentioned was an impossible one, and the notice stands as though there had been no attempt to fix a day theréin.
    
      Oillet & Pier, for defendant in error.
   Cole, J.

The sole question in this case is, whether the sale made by the commissioners was invalid by reason of the mistake in the notice of sale. The published notice stated that the mortgaged premises would be offered for sale, and sold to the highest bidder, at the office of the secretary of state, at the capitol in Madison, on the 6th day of December, A. D. “1761,” unless sooner redeemed according to law. The notice was dated September 5, 1861. The mistake consisted in stating that the sale would take place on the 6th of December, “1761,” instead of 1861. It seems to us that this mistake could have misled no one. It was an impossible day— a day of the past century. The notice pointed to a sale to take place in the future. In reading the whole notice no one conld be in doubt as to when the sale would take place. If the mistake had been of such a nature that any one conld have been misled by it, or such as to render the day upon which the sale was to be made doubtful or uncertain, there would be ground for holding that it invalidated the sale. But the mistake was evidently not of that character. Had the notice stated that the sale would take place on the 6th of December, ’ 61, we think it would have been sufficient. The place, the day of the month, and the month being designated, no one would be misled as to the year when stated in that manner. It seems to us that this case is clearly distinguishable from Miller v. Hull, 4 Denio, 104 ; Van Slyke v. Sheldon, 9 Barb. 278 ; King v. Duntz, 11 id. 192; and other cases of that character in New York, to which we were referred by the counsel for the defendant, 'in support of the position that the sale made by the commissioners was void.

By the Qourt. —The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.