Case Name: Dean vs. Earley
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1862-05-15
Citations: 15 Wis. 100
Docket Number: 
Parties: Dean vs. Earley.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 15
Pages: 100–101

Head Matter:
Dean vs. Earley.
May 15.
under the statutes of 1849, the formal execution and record of a tax deed of mu-occupied premises drew after it the possession, and made it incumbent on the previous owner, if he desired to contest its validity, to commence his action, or lake actual adverse possession, within the period of limitation prescribed; otherwise his right was gone.
ERROR to tbe Circuit Court for Dane County.
On tbe 6tb of August, 1861, Earley commenced an action against Dean to recover possession of a certain lot in tbe city of Madison in Dane county. On tbe trial, tbe plaintiff offered in evidence, among other conveyances, a tax deed for said lot, dated June 20, 1851, executed by tbe clerk of tbe board of supervisors of said county, in tbe name of tbe state, to tbe plaintiff’s grantor, duly acknowledged, and recorded June 24, 1851. Tbe defendant objected to tbe reading of tbe deed in evidence, “ for tbat it was no evidence of title to said lot, and for tbat tbis action was not brought within tbe time required by tbe statute of limitations, in order to entitle tbe plaintiff to any right under said deed.” Objection .overruled. It was admitted tbat tbe lot bad never been actually occupied by any one until tbe previous year, when tbe defendant took possession of it and enclosed it with a fence; and tbat be was in possession at the commencement of tbe action. There was other evidence, which, under tbe decision of tbe court, became immaterial.
Judgment for tbe plaintiff.
J. H. Knowlton, for plaintiff in error.
Abbott, Gregory & Pinney, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
By the Court,
Dixoít, C. J.
It was held in Knox vs. Cleveland, 13 Wis. 245, tbat under tbe statutes of 1849, tbe formal execution and record of a tax deed of unoccupied premises, drew after it tbe possession, and made it incumbent on tbe previous owner, if be desired to contest its validity, to commence bis action or take actual adverse possession within tbe period of limitation prescribed, else bis right was gone-Tbis case comes fully within tbe principle there laid dowm and it becomes unnecessary for us to consider tbe other questions presented.
Judgment affirmed.