Case Name: Foster vs. Hall and another
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1878-08
Citations: 44 Wis. 568
Docket Number: 
Parties: Foster vs. Hall and another.
Judges: EyaN, O. J., took no part.
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 44
Pages: 568–569

Head Matter:
Foster vs. Hall and another.
(1) Vacating execution sale for irregularity. (2) Presumption of regularity.
1. A motion to set aside an execution sale of land will not be entertained unless made-within a reasonable time after the sale; and in this case an order vacating- such a sale for mere irregularity is reversed as an abuse of discretion, where there was an interval of twenty months between the sale and the motion to vacate.
2. Quaere, whether it will not be presumed that the sheriff, in an execution sale of land, first offered the land in parcels (as the law required), in , the absence of affirmative proof to the contrary.
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Portage County.
The case is stated in the opinion.
H. W. Lee, for the appellant.
For the respondent, a brief was filed b j Baymondds Hasel-tine, and the canse was argued orally by Mr. Haseltine.

Opinion:
OktoN, J.
This is an appeal from an order of the circuit court setting aside and vacating a sale of lands made by the sheriff upon an execution. The sale was made on the 21st day of September, 1876. The motion to set aside and vacate the sale was made on tbe -27th. day of May, 1878, for certain irregularities, merely, one of which was-that the lands were not first offered in parcels.
A motion to set aside a sale on execution must be made in a reasonable time after the sale, or it will not be entertained; and we think that a delay of over twenty months after the sale, and near the expiration of the time of redemption, is most unreasonable and gross laches, if unexplained and unexcused, as in this case; and we shall be compelled to hold that the order of the circuit court in setting aside this sale was an abuse of discretion, for this reason alone.
There appears to be nothing in the record, or the affidavits accompanying the motion, to show affirmatively that the lands were not first offered in parcels. In such a case, will it not be presumed that the officer did his duty in this respect, unless the contrary is shown? Qucere.
By the Court.- — -The order of the circuit court is reversed, with costs.
EyaN, O. J., took no part.