Legal Opinion

Olson v. Veum

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided November 7, 1928PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEschweiler, J.

It was the plaintiff alone and not the defendant who sought affirmative relief on account of their contract. To sustain the judgment bélow is to overlook the substantial distinction between a mere denial by an infant of contract liability where the other party is seeking to enforce it and those cases where he who was the minor not only disaffirms such contract but seeks the aid of the court to restore to him that with which he has parted at the making of the contract. In the one case he is using his infancy merely as a shield, in the other also as a sword. The latter situation is fully…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Myers v. Hurley Motor Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1927
  2. MacGreal v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
  3. O'Dell v. RogersWisconsin Supreme Court · 1878
  4. Dame v. C. H. Hanson & Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1912
  5. J. G. Pierce Co. v. WallaceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1925

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Putman v. DeinhamerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1955
  2. Halbman v. LemkeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1980
  3. Sargent Co. Employees Fed. v. McElveenConnecticut Superior Court · 1949
  4. Sargent & Co. Employees Federal Credit Union v. McElveenPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas · 1949

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

Powered by the Exa API