Legal Opinion

Seffens v. Carisch

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided May 11, 1926PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDoerfler, J.

As answer to the third question of the special verdict the jury found that Carisch was acting as the agent of Mrs. McKenney in withholding-the certificate. The court- set aside the answer of the jury to this question upon *152the ground that there was no credible evidence to sustain such answer. We have carefully reviewed the evidence and are satisfied that the action of the court was fully warranted. Carisch was the husband of Mrs. McKenney’s daughter. No unpleasant relations existed between McKen-ney and Carisch. McKenney haid arrived at the age of seventy-seven years, and it is natural to…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. McGowan v. Supreme Court of the Independent Order of ForestersWisconsin Supreme Court · 1899
  2. Rollins v. McHattonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1891
  3. Modern Woodmen of America v. HeadleSupreme Court of Vermont · 1914
  4. Berg v. DamkoehlerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1902
  5. Faubel v. EckhartWisconsin Supreme Court · 1912

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Empire General Life Insurance v. SilvermanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1987
  2. Wolfe v. JebeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1943

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

Powered by the Exa API