Wisconsin Reports (Volume 166) (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos, missing text or index. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. 1918. Not illustrated. Excerpt: ... Rosenthal v. Pleck, 166 Wis. 598. Such has been the law since. It is clear that the statute as it now stands declares every alienation by a married man of his homestead without his wife's signature absolutely void, no matter in what form it may be made or what interest therein it may seek to alienate. The statute was no doubt amended to change the rule announced in Jerdee v. Furbush, supra. In the present case alienation was attempted by a written agreement to convey. Such an agreement, if otherwise valid, conveys an equitable title to the land (Krakow v. Wills, 125 Wis. 284, 103 N. W. 1121; 13 Ruling Case Law, 638, 639), and specific performance will lie to compel the transfer of the legal title. The statute expressly declares such a contract void, and a court of equity has no power to reform it by releasing therefrom the homestead right, because the court cannot give life to that which the statute declares invalid. 13 Ruling Case Law, 639, note; 28 L. R. A. N. s. 872; Stodalka v. Novotny, 144 111. 125, 33 N. E. 534. For the same reason the contract, being void in toto, cannot be made the basis of an action for damages. 13 Ruling Case Law, 639; Lichty v. Beale, 75 Neb. 770, 106 N. W. 1018; Wheelock v. Countryman, 133 Iowa, 289, 110 N. W. 598; Mundy v. Shellaberger, 161 Fed. 503 and cases cited on p. 506; Silander v. Gronna, 15 N. Dak. 552, 108 N. W. 544, 125 Am. St. Rep. 616 and note. The statutory condemnation reaches every feature of the contract that involves the alienation of the homestead, to the end that no valid obligation for its alienation or of any interest therein, or for the incurring of any liability thereunder, can be made by the husband without the wife's consent. The legislative thought was that it is contrary to public policy to permit the hus...