Legal Opinion

Lytle v. Godfirnon

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided November 10, 1942PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFaiRCHIld, J.

The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for nonsuit, basing its decision on the fact that plaintiff, though not an architect, held himself out as such and therefore under thé rule of Hickey v. Sutton, 191 Wis. 313, 210 N. W. 704, could not recover for the services rendered. We are of the opinion that the trial court erred under sec. 101.31, Stats., as it now stands in the view it took of the facts as shown in plaintiff’s evidence and that as a result the nonsuit was erroneously granted. The evidence introduced does not show without dispute that plaintiff held himself out to be an…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hickey v. SuttonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1926
  2. Adams v. FeigesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
  3. Wahlstrom v. HillWisconsin Supreme Court · 1934

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. City of Madison v. Frank Lloyd Wright FoundationWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
  2. Vereinigte Osterreichische Eisen und Stahlwerke, A. G. v. Modular Building & Development Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1970

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

Powered by the Exa API