Legal Opinion

Murphy v. Burns

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided November 6, 1934PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWickhem, J.

It is the contention of defendant that all claims for services rendered by claimant prior to May 4, 1927 (six years before Mrs. Clarke’s death), are barred under the statute of limitation, and that there is nothing in the record from which it may be concluded that there existed between the parties an open and mutual account which would take the case out of the statute under the rule of Laughnan v. Estate of Laughnan, 165 Wis. 348, 162 N. W. 169.

The facts are not in dispute. About August, 1918, claimant came to live with deceased and her husband in a house located on Riverside drive, Beloit.…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Taylor v. ThiemanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1907
  2. State ex rel. Hustisford Light, Power & Manufacturing Co. v. GrimmWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Lowe v. RingWisconsin Supreme Court · 1904
  4. Marsh v. FraserWisconsin Supreme Court · 1875
  5. Tucker v. GroverWisconsin Supreme Court · 1884

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Kueschel v. Estate of BocherWisconsin Supreme Court · 1946
  2. Estate of RosenthalWisconsin Supreme Court · 1945
  3. Kessler v. OlenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
  4. Spellbrink v. BrambergWisconsin Supreme Court · 1944
  5. Estate of Goyk v. GoykWisconsin Supreme Court · 1934

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

Powered by the Exa API