Legal Opinion

Schwemer v. Milwaukee Commercial Bank

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided December 9, 1924PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJones, J.

The first exception of the defendant relates to the reception as evidence of the statement of assets and liabilities contained in Exhibit 7. There was no verification of its. correctness, and it clearly was not substantive proof tending to show the insolvency of the Aromatic Products Company. It was admitted by Mr. Kay that he had no reason to believe that the exhibit was incorrect. We cannot say that it had no probative value as bearing on the question of whether the bank and its officers had reasonable grounds to believe that the Aromatic Company was insolvent.

One of the main objections…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Grant v. National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
  2. In re Star Spring Bed Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1920
  3. In re F. M. & S. Q. CarlileDistrict Court, D. North Carolina · 1912
  4. Smith v. PowersDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 1919
  5. Goetz v. ZeifWisconsin Supreme Court · 1923

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Mixon v. Mid-Continent Systems, Inc. (In Re Big Three Transportation, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1983
  2. Sutherland v. HonakerWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1938

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

Powered by the Exa API