Kurth v. Hauser
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtGehl, J.
Defendants contend, first, that since the contract is for the sale of personal property, plaintiffs are not entitled to specific performance. It is true that ordinarily a party will not be compelled to specifically perform a contract for the sale of shares of corporate stock. There are exceptions to the rule, however. If the shares cannot be readily secured in the market specific performance is allowed. 3 Williston, Sales (rev. ed.), p. 329, sec. 602. See also notes, 22 A. L. R. 1041, 130 A. L. R. 926.
In Avery v. Ryan, 74 Wis. 591, 43 N. W. 317, the court refused to compel specific…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- My Laundry Co. v. SchmelingWisconsin Supreme Court · 1906
- City of Eau Claire v. Eau Claire Water Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1909
- Miller v. Milwaukee Odd Fellows Temple, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
- Henry v. La GrouWisconsin Supreme Court · 1929
- Avery v. RyanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1889
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- In re the Estate of GalewitzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1957
- Gingerich v. Protein Blenders, Inc.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1959
- Tesmer v. CHARTER FILMS, INC.District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 2005
- Foley Living Trust Dated November 5, 2007 v. BurgerDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 2025