Bergeron v. Richardott
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Ohippewa County. From August, 1872, to September, 1874, the plaintiffs and .the defendant Mairet were partners in business at Chippewa Falls, under the firm name of Mairet, Le Boef & Co. They ceased doing business as such at the latter date.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Ohippewa County. From August, 1872, to September, 1874, the plaintiffs and .the defendant Mairet were partners in business at Chippewa Falls, under the firm name of Mairet, Le Boef & Co. They ceased doing business as such at the latter date. In the ■spring of 1874, the defendant Mairet borrowed money on his individual account and for his own use of the defendant Richardott; and when the loan was negotiated, it was agreed 'between them that it should be secured by a conveyance of the lot on which was the store where the firm transacted its business. The record…
1Opinion of the CourtLyoit, J.
1. One of the controlling questions in this case is, Was the lot in controversy partnership property when Mairet conveyed it to the appellant, Pichardott, to secure his indebtedness to the latter? The testimony satisfies us that the question must be answered in the affirmative. We think the following facts are established by the proofs: The firm of Mairet, Le Boef & Co., composed of the plaintiffs and the defendant Mairet, was the successor of the firm of Mairet, Allen & Co. The members of the latter firm were one Allen, the plaintiffs Le Boef and Etier and the defendant Mairet. Allen retired…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Van Valkenburgh v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1878
3Cited by10 opinions
- Chakales v. DjiovanidesSupreme Court of Virginia · 1933
- Hoffman v. SilverthornMichigan Supreme Court · 1904
- Humpfner v. D. M. Osborne & Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1891
- Macomb Sewer-Pipe Co. v. HanleySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
- Lamoreux v. HuntleyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1887
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.