Case Name: Collart vs. Fisk, imp.
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1875-08
Citations: 38 Wis. 238
Docket Number: 
Parties: Collart vs. Fisk, imp.
Judges: Ryan, C. J., took no part in the decision of this cause.
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 38
Pages: 238–244

Head Matter:
Collart vs. Fisk, imp.
FORECLOSURE: Pleadikg. (1) Answer, denial of Imowledge or information.
Supreme Court. (2) Brief on motion for rehea/ring must be printed.
1. One made defendant iu foreclosure of a recorded mortgage, under a general averment that he had or claimed some interest in the land which was subsequent and subject to plaintiff’s mortgage, answered denying knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief of any averment of the complaint except that he had or claimed an interest in the land, without alleging that such interest was prior or paramount to said mortgage. Held,
(1) That while this does not put in issue the execution or recording of plaintiff’s mortgage, it is yet a'good traverse, since it sufficiently denies that any sum was due thereon at the commencement of the action.
(2) That it must he understood as admitting defendant’s interest to he subject to plaintiff’s mortgage.
2. This court must enforce its first rule of July 2d, 1875, requiring briefs on motions for a rehearing to be 'printed.
APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court for Brown Countjn
The action is to foreclose a mortgage on real estate, executed by the defendant Coppersmith to the plaintiff, to secure the payment of a promissory note of even date made by the former. The note is dated June 23d, 1871, and is for $200 payable in ñve years, with interest payable annually. The breach of condition alleged is the nonpayment of interest for three years. The complaint contains an averment that the defendants Cor-mier and Fish “ have or claim to have some interest in or lien upon the said mortgaged premises or some part thereof, which interest or lien, if any, has accrued subsequently to the lien of tbe said mortgage.” It is also alleged that the mortgage was duly recorded in the proper office, July 17th, 1871.
The defendant Fish answered separately, denying “ that he has any knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief that any allegation of said complaint is true, except the allegation that this defendant has or claims some interest in or lien upon the so called mortgaged premises.” To this answer the plaintiff interposed a demurrer, alleging that it failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense or counterclaim ; and he appeal ed from an order overruling the demurrer.
L. J. Billings, for appellant,
argued that the defendant is charged by the record with constructive notice of the existence of the mortgage, and can not be permitted to deny all knowl edge or information respecting it. Hathaway v. Baldwin, 17 Wis., 616; Dodge v. Silverthorn, 12 id., 644; State v. McGdrry, 21 id., 496 ; Mills v. Town of Jefferson, 20 id., 50; City of Milwaukee v. O’Sullivan, 25 id., 666 ; Edwards v. Lent, 8 How. Pr., 28; Lawrence v. Derby, 24 id., 133 ; Bales v. Hicks, 12 id., 153 ; Chapman v. Palmer, id., 37; St. Mark's Ins. Go. v. Harris’, 13 id., 95; Hance v. Bumming, 2 E. D. Smith, 48; Ketcham v. Zerega, 1 id., 553 ; Richardson v. Wilton, 4 Sandi, 708 ; People v. McOumber, 18 N. Y., 815; Wesson v. Judd, 1 Abb. Pr., 254. Nor is tbe answer a denial of the amount due, payment being an affirmative defense, which should be pleaded.
Norris & C'hynovjeth, for respondent:
A demurrer may be interposed to one or more of several causes of action, or defenses, but not to a part or less than an entire one. R. S., ch. 125, secs. 6, 13, 15; Manchester v. Storrs, 3 How. Pr., 410 ; Cóbb v. Frazee,- 4 id., 413; Spellman v. Weider, 5- id., 5. The denial of one material allegation of the complaint is sufficient to constitute a defense, and if the answer in this case does that, the demurrer cannot be sustained. Rogers v. Milwaukee, 13 Wis., 610; Curtis v. Moore, 15 id., 134; Webster v. Tidbits, 19 id., 438; Bishop v. Douglass, 25 id., 696; Dean v. Borchsenius, 80 id., 236 ; Genesee Mut. Ins. Co. v. Moynihen, 5 How. 'Pr., 321. Though insufficient to make an. issue upon the execution, delivery and recording of the mortgage, the answer contains a sufficient denial of the allegations of indebtedness thereon, and of the mortgagor’s default, as well as of the statement that the respondent’s lien is subordinate to the plaintiffs.

Opinion:
Lyon, J.
On the authority of Hathaway v. Baldwin, 17 Wis., 616, it must be held that the -answer of the defendant Fisk, so far as it relates to the execution, recording and ownership of the mortgage described in the complaint, is insufficient. But a defendant who is a subsequent incumbrancer may litigate the questions as to whether any thing is due on the debt secured by the mortgage, and, if so. how much; and, as a matter of course, be may deny in bis answer that anything is due, or that there is as much due thereon as the plaintiff claims.
The reasons why such subsequent incumbrancer may not deny the execution and recording of the mortgage by denial of knowledge or information thereof sufficient to form á belief, are, that the record is made and kept for the purpose of giving that information; that it is open to all, and constructive notice to all; and that its correctness and authenticity are to be presumed. For these reasons it is held that no person can be heard to plead ignorance of the record so far as it affects his own title or property. But these reasons do not apply to the defense that nothing is due, or that less than the plaintiff claims is due on the mortgage debt. There is no record to show payments thereon, and a subsequent incumbrancer has no constructive notice on the subject. Hence no good reason is perceived why he may not deny the allegations of the complaint in respect to the amount due on the mortgage debt, just as he may deny any other material allegation therein, of which he is not presumed to have knowledge and concerning which he is ignorant, by a denial of knowledge or information thereof sufficient to form a belief. The cases cited By the learned counsel for the appellant in support of the opposite doctrine have been examined, and we think they fail to sustain the position of counsel.
We conclude that the answer of the defendant Fish contains a sufficient denial that there has been any breach of the conditions of the mortgage, and that the demurrer thereto was properly overruled.
By the Court.— Order affirmed.