Legal Opinion

Goodsitt v. Richter

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided October 12, 1934PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWickhem, J.

The defendant’s principal contentions are: First, that the evidence does not sustain the finding of a joint adventure, and, second, that the alleged agreement of joint adventure would be void under the statute of frauds. While defendant makes several other contentions, the foregoing may well be considered at the outset, since both require an examination of the facts in some detail.

On December 2, 1925, one Ellison contracted with the defendant Oberst to sell him a ninety-nine year lease in the city of Milwaukee, for the sum of $54,500. The written evidence of this agreement was signed by…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Shaft v. CareyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1900
  2. Krzysko v. GaudynskiWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Steuerwald v. RichterWisconsin Supreme Court · 1914
  4. Langley v. SanbornWisconsin Supreme Court · 1908
  5. Seymour v. CushwayWisconsin Supreme Court · 1898

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Bowman v. FullerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1951
  2. Hanley v. VolpeDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1969
  3. In Re Estate of SchaeferWisconsin Supreme Court · 1976
  4. James W. Thomas Construction Co. v. City of MadisonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1977
  5. Catholic Knights of Wisconsin v. LevyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1952

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

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

Powered by the Exa API