Legal Opinion

Burrows v. Madison Park & Pleasure Drive Ass'n

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided July 8, 1922PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDoerfler, J.

Plaintiff’s counsel claim that the eighth provision of the will above set forth constitutes a condition subsequent and that the Association failed to maintain said tract for park purposes, as was designed by the testator, and that such failure constituted a breach of the condition subsequent, and that the tract thereupon reverted to the heirs at law of the deceased. Assuming that the provision of the will referred to creates a condition subsequent, was such condition breached ?

Conditions subsequent are most strongly construed against the grantor, and a forfeiture will not be enforced unless…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Rose v. . HawleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
  2. Mills v. Evansville SeminaryWisconsin Supreme Court · 1883
  3. Rowe v. City of MinneapolisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
  4. Osgood v. AbbottSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1870
  5. Bonniwell v. MadisonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1898

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Putney v. School District No. 4 of BrookfieldWisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
  2. Koonz v. Joint School District No. 4Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1950
  3. Erskine v. Board of Regents of University of Neb.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1960
  4. St. Clara College v. City of MadisonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1947

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

Powered by the Exa API