Muscoda Bridge Co. v. Worden Allen Co.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Dissent
While I concur in nearly all that is said in the opinion of the court, I must dissent (1) from the inclusion of $210 in the allowance for rental of machinery and (2) from reversal of the case for reassessment of attorneys' fees.(1) Damages for tying up the machinery during the period the injunction was in force were allowed on the basis of the rental value of the machinery and treated in the opinion on the hypothesis that all of the machinery was owned by the defendants. It is undisputed that an air compressor loaned to the defendants for use on the job was included with that owned by the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Lambert v. AlcornIllinois Supreme Court · 1893
- Mitchell v. HawleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Jacobson v. Laurel Canyon Mining Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1925
- H. A. Hillmer Co. v. BehrAppellate Court of Illinois · 1915
- August v. GonsalvesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.