Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 891.27 (2026)

Effect of seal

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

891.27891.27 Effect of seal. A seal upon an executory instrument shall be received as only presumptive evidence of a sufficient consideration.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases, 1967–2004 · leading case: Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wisconsin Sys. v. Mussallem, 289 N.W.2d 801 (Wis. 1980).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wisconsin Sys. v. Mussallem, 289 N.W.2d 801 (Wis. 1980). · cites it 3× “Specifically, the defendant alleges that: “There has been no showing that any consideration was advanced for the sealed document upon which this suit is based.”

Mitchell Bank v. Schanke, 2004 WI 13 (Wis. 2004). · cites it 2× “In contrast, Wis. Stat. § 891.27 (1985-86) provides: "A seal upon an executory instrument shall be received as only presumptive evidence of a sufficient consideration.”

St. Norbert Coll. Found., Inc. v. McCormick, 260 N.W.2d 776 (Wis. 1978). · cites it 2× “The trial court's analysis is sound on its face, and the trial court's conclusion inevitably follows from the analysis.”

In Re Est. of Taylor, 260 N.W.2d 803 (Wis. 1978). “Both the lease and the bill of sale recite a consideration of $1 and are sealed.”

Ixonia State Bank v. Ingersoll (In Re Ingersoll), 8 B.R. 912 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 1981). · cites it 2× “Nevertheless, assuming consideration is required for the Agreements to be valid, consideration for each of the Agreements exists.”

Farley v. Salow, 227 N.W.2d 76 (Wis. 1975). “See: Sec. 891.27, Stats. Also, the agreement was signed the same day that the purchase agreement was signed, by the same parties in the course of the same transaction.”

Prestin v. Baumgartner, 177 N.W.2d 825 (Wis. 1970). “An examination of the denials contained in defendant’s answer reveals that, although they are not framed in the exact words of the complaint, the similarity is indeed striking. The most crucial shortcoming of the defendant’s answer, however, is its admission that he executed the…”

Hoffmann v. Wausau Concrete Co., 207 N.W.2d 80 (Wis. 1973). “” In this case, the presumption drops out, for the record shows that there was no actual consideration.”

Burmeister v. Schultz, 154 N.W.2d 770 (Wis. 1967). “Sec. 891.27, Stats. No issue regarding the adequacy of consideration was raised below.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.