Legal Opinion

Demge v. Feierstein

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 22, 1936PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWickhem, J.

For reasons that will hereafter be evident, it will be convenient upon this appeal to consider together the demurrers of defendant indemnity company and the defendants Feierstein.

The liability sought to be established by the complaint against defendant indemnity company is based upon sec. 176.10, Stats. (ch. 13, Laws of Sp. Sess. 1933-34), which in substance requires every applicant for a tavern license before delivery of the license to file with the town, village, or city clerk a bond to the state in the sum of $1,000, conditioned that the applicant during the continuance of his license—

“will…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Waube v. WarringtonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Koehler v. Waukesha Milk Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1926
  3. Healey v. CadySupreme Court of Vermont · 1932
  4. Buntin v. HuttonAppellate Court of Illinois · 1917
  5. Coy v. CuttingSupreme Court of Kansas · 1933

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

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Cole v. RushCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
  2. Pierce v. AlbaneseSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1957
  3. Beck v. GroeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1955
  4. State v. HatfieldCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1951
  5. Sorensen v. JarvisWisconsin Supreme Court · 1984

24 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