Legal Opinion

Cochrane v. C. Hennecke Co.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided February 10, 1925PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtVinje, C. J.

The theory of plaintiff as to its right to maintain the first cause of action is confusing and indefinite. *151It is based mostly upon arguments founded upon facts supposed to exist or claimed that may exist, or may be shown upon the trial, rather than upon the facts alleged in the complaint. It is an elementary principle of law that upon a demurrer to a complaint the facts alleged in the complaint control and recourse cannot be had to a supposed state of facts or upon a guess as to what the evidence may show upon the trial. As a basis for this criticism several extracts from the argument of…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Cook v. McCabeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1881
  2. Secard v. Rhinelander Lighting Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1912
  3. Pennsylvania Steel Co. v. Elmore & Hamilton Contracting Co.District Court, N.D. New York · 1909
  4. Halsey v. Waukesha Springs Sanitarium Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1905
  5. Simons & Son v. ZimmerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1924

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Mueller v. Silver Fleet Trucking Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1949
  2. Van Gilder v. GugelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1936
  3. Keasler v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1928
  4. Lange v. AndrusWisconsin Supreme Court · 1957
  5. Schwab v. NelsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1946

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