Burrows v. Madison Park & Pleasure Drive Ass'n
Wisconsin Supreme Court
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
- Rose v. . HawleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
- Mills v. Evansville SeminaryWisconsin Supreme Court · 1883
- Rowe v. City of MinneapolisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
- Osgood v. AbbottSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1870
- Bonniwell v. MadisonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1898
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Putney v. School District No. 4 of BrookfieldWisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
- Koonz v. Joint School District No. 4Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1950
- Erskine v. Board of Regents of University of Neb.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1960
- St. Clara College v. City of MadisonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1947