Sechrest v. Sechrest
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.
There was to be an end to the partnership. The agreement fixes the date as of the 6th of January, 1944. That appears as the time of dissolution from the terms agreed upon, to wit: “It has been agreed that Howard Sechrest is to continue the operation of the business by himself as of the date of this instrument,” and “it is agreed that Edmonde Sechrest is to retire from the business and have no further interest in the business.” If the agreement referred to controls, the judgment must be reversed and all other questions drop out of the case. As we must hold that the agreement is effective,…
Also in this document: Dissent.
2Cited by8 opinions
- Bader v. Cox, Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)1985
- Gull v. Van EppsCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1994
- Svihl v. GressNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1974
- Oliker v. GershunoffCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1987
- Hilgendorf v. DensonDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1977
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.