Legal Opinion

Degner v. Moncel

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided January 2, 1959PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBroadfoot, J.

The defendant contends that neither he nor Stearns made any false statements of fact to the plaintiff to induce him to execute the two notes for commission. Both Moncel and Stearns testified that they had no binding agreement with Plendel or McNary by which they could enforce the payment of a commission from the seller.

Upon the trial Stearns testified that McNary had said, “We’ll take care of you.” That was in response to a question as to whether he had any agreement, either oral or in writing, for a commission for selling the farm. Although the date is not given it must be inferred that it…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Pederson v. JohnsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1919
  2. Caveney v. CaveneyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1940
  3. Polley v. Boehck Equipment Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1956
  4. Old Settlers Club of Milwaukee County, Inc. v. HaunWisconsin Supreme Court · 1944

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Burg v. Miniature Precision Components, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1983
  2. Lucas v. GodfreyCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1991
  3. Colson v. RuleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
  4. Beneficial Finance Co. of Charleston v. CollinsWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1966
  5. Meyer v. Val-Lo-Will Farms, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1961

8 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