Dickson v. Pritchard
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Pierce county: E. W. Helms, Circuit Judge. This action is to recover damages growing out of certain false representations claimed to have been made to induce the plaintiffs to enter into a contract with the defendant to ream and case a well on the defendant’s farm.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Pierce county: E. W. Helms, Circuit Judge. This action is to recover damages growing out of certain false representations claimed to have been made to induce the plaintiffs to enter into a contract with the defendant to ream and case a well on the defendant’s farm. The complaint sets out a written contract, under which the plaintiffs agreed to ream and drill a well on defendant’s farm of sufficient size to admit five-inch oil-well casing, to the depth of three hundred and twenty-eight feet, or to the lower edge of the St. Peter sandstone, or…
1Opinion of the CourtBaedeeh, J.
A number of errors relating to the rejection and admission of testimony are argued, but none of them is of sufficient importance to require extended notice. The refusal to allow an amendment to the complaint to the effect that defendant had knowledge that an old well existed within a short distance of the new one, and did not disclose such knowledge to the plaintiffs, was not erroneous. There was no evidence that the defendant had any knowledge that the two holes came together, as was claimed by the plaintiffs, or that he was familiar with any fact or circumstance from which such knowledge…
2Cited by2 opinions
- In re GehrkeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1922
- Johnson v. S. W. Straus & Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1931