Case ID: wis_13/html/0431-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Paine, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bean and others vs. Whitcomb and others.
    Where in an equity case an appeal is taken without any bill of exceptions being settled, and without the evidence being preserved in any authentic manner, the only question that can be reviewed in this court is, whether the finding of the court below sustains the judgment.
    Where the judgment is for a strict foreclosure, and adjudges that_the “ defendants,” being the mortgagor and subsequent incumbrancers, pay the amount due within a specified time, and that in default thereof they be barred, &c., this is not an absolute personal judgment against the subsequent incumbran-cers, and they are not entitled to have it reversed on appeal.
    
      April 10.
    APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court for Racine County.
    No statement of tbe case is necessary.
    
      Eugene S. Turner, for ajipellants.
    
      Strong & Fuller, for respondents.
   By the Court,

Paine, J.

As there was no bill of exceptions settled in tbis case, and tbe evidence was not preserved and presented to tbis court in any authentic manner, we cannot examine most of tbe questions made by tbe appellants.

Tbe only one we can pass on is, whether tbe finding of tbe court below warrants tbe judgment. Tbe only reason urged why it does not, is that there is a personal judgment against all tbe defendants, some of whom were mere subsequent incumbrancers, for tbe whole amount due on tbe mortgage. But on examining tbe judgment, we think it is not liable to tbis objection. Tbe action and judgment were for a strict foreclosure. And although it is adjudged that tbe defendants pay tbe amount due within a specified time, yet tbe only result of their not doing it was, that they would be barred, and tbe title vested in tbe plaintiff. It was necessary to give tbis privilege to tbe subsequent incumbranc-ers, as well as to tbe mortgagor, for they all bad tbe right to redeem. But tbe judgment cannot be deemed an absolute personal judgment against them, nor even against tbe mortgagor. It carries on its face tbe antidote to such a construction.

We can only affirm it, with costa