Legal Opinion

Elbinger v. Capitol & Teutonia Co.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided May 10, 1932PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtOwen, J.

The plaintiff is a licensed real-estate broker. Pursuant to an oral understanding between the defendant Capitol & Teutonia Company, the plaintiff, Karl Elbinger, and his associate, Herbert Baer, said Elbinger and Baer negotiated a lease of certain premises owned by the defendant. These services were not rendered pursuant to a written contract, as required by sec. 240.10, Stats., and it is conceded that an action by the brokers could not have been maintained to recover the value of the. brokerage services. However, after the transaction was consummated, the defendant voluntarily settled with…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Coulter v. HowardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  2. Muir v. KaneWashington Supreme Court · 1909
  3. Park Falls State Bank v. FordyceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
  4. Mohr v. RickgauerNebraska Supreme Court · 1908
  5. Bagaeff v. ProkopikMichigan Supreme Court · 1920

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Hannan v. CharnessCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1942
  2. Estate of Hatten v. MonstedWisconsin Supreme Court · 1939
  3. Odell v. SmithWisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
  4. Homefinders v. LawrenceIdaho Supreme Court · 1959
  5. Estate of SchoenkermanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1940

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