Legal Opinion

Pietsch v. Wegwart

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided November 8, 1922PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDoerfler, J.

If the defense of the statute of limitations interposed by the defendant Conant to the cross-complaint is sustained, then it becomes unnecessary to consider the merits of the controversy. Counsel for Wegwart maintain that the action set forth in plaintiff’s complaint is equitable and one which prior to February 28, 1857, was solely cognizable by a court of chancery. It is admitted that *503more than six years had elapsed between the time of the sales of the standing timber on the 960 and 560-acre tracts, but that at the time' of the commencement of the action ten years had not yet elapsed. It…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Ludington v. PattonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
  2. Boyd v. Mutual Fire Ass'nWisconsin Supreme Court · 1903
  3. Mason v. . HenryNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
  4. Pietsch v. MilbrathWisconsin Supreme Court · 1905
  5. Ott v. HoodWisconsin Supreme Court · 1913

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Overfield v. Pennroad CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1944
  2. CMFG Life Insurance Company v. RBS Securities, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2015
  3. Thom v. SensenbrennerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
  4. Caveney v. CaveneyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1940
  5. Gottschalk v. ZieglerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API