Legal Opinion

Washington County v. Groth

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided February 5, 1929PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCrownhart, J.

There are no facts stated in the answer justifying a finding of fraud or gross negligence on the part of the county in failing to notify the defendant Groth of the failure of the Mercantile Company to comply with its contract. The contract is alleged to be void because made by faithless officials. The county could act only through its proper officials, and for that reason bonds are required to protect the county, and for that reason the bond was required in this instance. The defendant bound himself that “if the said bounden principal shall, in all things, well and truly perform all the terms…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Harris v. RunnelsSupreme Court of the United States · 1851
  2. Gold-Mining Co. v. National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
  3. Reynolds v. Crawfordsville First National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
  4. Cashin v. PliterMichigan Supreme Court · 1912
  5. Land, Log & Lumber Co. v. McIntyreWisconsin Supreme Court · 1898

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. State v. DavisWisconsin Supreme Court · 1974
  2. State v. RobinsonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1942
  3. Reetz v. KitchWisconsin Supreme Court · 1939
  4. State v. BennettWisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
  5. Opinion No. Oag 100-78, (1978), Wisconsin Attorney General Reports1978

1 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