Legal Opinion

Pennsylvania Rubber Co. v. Sampson

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided May 3, 1927PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtVinje, C. J.

Error is claimed because (1) the court refused to prorate between subject and non-subject property payments made by the appellants to the seller; (2) the court refused to allow any credit to appellants for payments made to the unsecured creditors; and (3) the court refused to prorate liability of appellants among all unsecured creditors.

The claim that payments made to the seller should be prorated between subject and non-subject property is not tenable if its effect is to diminish the liability of the purchaser to less than the full value of the subject property. The Bulk Sales Law rests that…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Fecheimer-Keifer Co. v. BurtonTennessee Supreme Court · 1913
  2. Fitz Henry v. MunterWashington Supreme Court · 1903
  3. Gazett v. Iola Co-operative Mercantile Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1916
  4. National Grocer Co. v. PlotlerMichigan Supreme Court · 1911

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State Bank of Viroqua v. JacksonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1952
  2. Miller v. T. I. C. Consumer Discount Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Adams County1949

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

Powered by the Exa API