Neugent Garment Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
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
- Liberty Nat. Bank of Roanoke v. BearSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Dierolf v. WinterfieldWisconsin Supreme Court · 1869
- Thompson v. Royal Indemnity Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1928
- Straus v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1927
3Cited by4 opinions
- Fischer v. Pauline Oil & Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1940
- State Bank of Stearns v. StephensCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1936
- Walker v. ConnellNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1933
- Neugent Garment Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1932