Kindervater v. Till
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for St. Croix county: E. C. TIigbee, Judge. Two actions were commenced and consolidated. The complaint in each action contained one cause of action. The causes of action embraced in the two former actions are denominated in this action first cause of action and second cause of action. The second cause of action went in favor of the plaintiffs, and no appeal was taken by the defendant herein.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for St. Croix county: E. C. TIigbee, Judge. Two actions were commenced and consolidated. The complaint in each action contained one cause of action. The causes of action embraced in the two former actions are denominated in this action first cause of action and second cause of action. The second cause of action went in favor of the plaintiffs, and no appeal was taken by the defendant herein. The first cause of action was brought for breach of an alleged oral contract, and the jury returned the following verdict : “(1) Did the defendant' on the 16th…
1Opinion of the CourtKekwiN, J.
It appears without dispute that the contract mentioned in the first cause of action was oral, and the question arises whether it was void under sec. 2307, Stats., because by its terms it was not to 1je performed within one year from the making thereof.
It is insisted by appellants that it was valid because it consisted of two independent parts, one part called by counsel the “working part” and the other the “indemnity part.” It is argued that each part is complete in itself, separate and divisible from the other. The’ substance of the contract claimed to have been made is found in the first…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Martin v. Estate of MartinWisconsin Supreme Court · 1900
- Chase v. HinkleyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1905
- Treat v. HilesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1887
- Heath v. HeathWisconsin Supreme Court · 1872
- Cohen v. SteinWisconsin Supreme Court · 1884
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Frantz v. ParkeIdaho Court of Appeals · 1986
- Collection & Investigation Bureau of Maryland, Inc. v. LinsleyCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1977