Legal Opinion

Neugent Garment Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 23, 1930PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The following opinion was filed April 1, 1930:

Stevens, J.(1) The first question presented is what liability was imposed upon the defendant by the undertaking given for the purpose of securing a release of the attachment. This question is no longer an open one in Wisconsin. In Dierolf v. Winterfield, 24 Wis. 143, 144, it was held that a defendant in attachment must elect whether to trav*96erse the attachment or to give an undertaking for the release of the property, and that the giving of the undertaking was a waiver of the right to traverse. Thereafter the statute, which is now sec. 266.16, was…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Liberty Nat. Bank of Roanoke v. BearSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
  2. Dierolf v. WinterfieldWisconsin Supreme Court · 1869
  3. Thompson v. Royal Indemnity Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1928
  4. Straus v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1927

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Fischer v. Pauline Oil & Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1940
  2. State Bank of Stearns v. StephensCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1936
  3. Walker v. ConnellNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1933
  4. Neugent Garment Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1932

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

Powered by the Exa API