Hanrahan v. City of Janesville
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Rock county: Geoege G-eimm, Circuit Judge. Action to recover compensation for extra services alleged to have been necessarily performed by tbe plaintiffs for tbe defendant under contracts entered into between tbe parties for tbe construction of sewers.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Rock county: Geoege G-eimm, Circuit Judge. Action to recover compensation for extra services alleged to have been necessarily performed by tbe plaintiffs for tbe defendant under contracts entered into between tbe parties for tbe construction of sewers. On July 1, 1904, tbe defendant published a written notice to contractors tbat it would receive bids and sealed proposals for furnishing materials for tbe construction and completion of sewers upon certain streets named therein. One M. J. Benson made an offer to furnish tbe materials and do tbe…
1Opinion of the Court
ViNJE, J".
Tbe first question raised by tbe defendant is that'there was no assignment of tbe contracts from Benson, tbe principal contractor, to tbe plaintiffs, that was binding upon tbe defendant, owing to tbe fact that it never knew of, or consented to, such assignment. Tbe trial court, however, found that it did, and we are strongly urged to set aside such finding as not supported by tbe evidence. We deem it unnecessary to determine tbe precise question raised, because tbe city is not seeking, by counterclaim or otherwise, to enforce any liability against tbe principal contractor or the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hankwitz v. BarrettWisconsin Supreme Court · 1910
- Gilbert v. PierWisconsin Supreme Court · 1899
3Cited by3 opinions
- City of Kiel v. Frank Shoe Manufacturing Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1944
- Thomas-Bonner Co. v. Hooven, Owens & Rentschler Co.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 1920
- Waisman v. WagnerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1938