Legal Opinion

Miller v. Estate of Bell

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided April 27, 1937PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.

According to the findings of the county judge, no contract which was capable of specific enforcement existed between the parties. He did, however, reach the conclusion that the respondents ought to recover upon the principle of quantum meruit. To recover from the estate of their parent for services rendered, the children must prove a promise or agreement by the deceased, because the presumption is that any services so rendered were gratuitous. Taylor v. Thieman, 132 Wis. 38, 111 N. W. 229; Estate of *595Goltz, 205 Wis. 590, 238 N. W. 374. There is no finding by the trial court sustained by any…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Taylor v. ThiemanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1907
  2. Estate of Goltz v. MillerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Painter v. Estate of GrossmanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1947
  2. Estate of FickWisconsin Supreme Court · 1941
  3. Schmidt v. WennigerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1942

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

Powered by the Exa API