Leismann v. Lovely
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Manitowoc County. Action to enforce a lien on defendant’s land for labor done by plaintiff in removing stumps therefrom by means of a stump machine. The answer denies that the work was done for the defendant, and alleges, among other things, that it was done for one Pitz, and under contract with him.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Manitowoc County. Action to enforce a lien on defendant’s land for labor done by plaintiff in removing stumps therefrom by means of a stump machine. The answer denies that the work was done for the defendant, and alleges, among other things, that it was done for one Pitz, and under contract with him. The court instructed the jury, among other things, that the question whether the contract was made with defendant or Pitz was 'out of the case, for the reason that any contract made with Pitz for worlc on said land was in law the contract of defendant. Plaintiff…
1Opinion of the Court
Cole, J..We think the learned circuit court erred in not submitting to the jury tbe question whether Pitz was defendant’s agent for making the contract with the plaintiff for pull*421ing and removing the stumps from her land. The testimony tended very strongly to show that whatever contract was made with the plaintiff in the matter was made by Pitz; consequently his authority to make such a contract and bind the defendant was a very material question. The court decided or assumed as a matter of law, that Pitz was her agent for that purpose. Por the jury were charged that “ the evidence shows that…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Lauer v. BandowWisconsin Supreme Court · 1878
- Owens v. NorthrupWisconsin Supreme Court · 1872
3Cited by3 opinions
- National Bank v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Florida · 1896
- Clark v. NorthWisconsin Supreme Court · 1907
- Carter v. Keeton & ColemanSupreme Court of Virginia · 1911