Legal Opinion

Haumersen v. Sladky

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided January 7, 1936PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFritz, J.

It suffices for a consideration of the questions involved on the appeals herein to note, at the outset, the following facts which were established by evidence that is undisputed in many respects: On Saturday, July 7, 1934, the plaintiffs and Sladky duly entered into a contract which was drafted by Robert G. Nelson, a licensed real-estate broker, whom Sladky had engaged. Under that contract, Sladky agreed to convey his farm, including personal property and crops, to plaintiffs in exchange for their house and lot in Racine, and five shares of certain bank stqck, and their as*94sumption of a…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. McKevitt v. City of SacramentoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
  2. Jenkins v. . FaheyNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
  3. Messer v. OestreichWisconsin Supreme Court · 1881
  4. Combs v. ScottWisconsin Supreme Court · 1890
  5. Maryland Construction Co. v. KuperCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1900

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Gibson v. De La Salle InstituteCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
  2. Zuelke v. GergoWisconsin Supreme Court · 1951
  3. Rottman v. EndejanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1959
  4. Padol v. SwitalskiWisconsin Supreme Court · 1945
  5. Pike v. Von FleckensteinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962

2 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