Legal Opinion

Stubbings v. McGregor

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided October 17, 1893PublishedCited by 7 opinions

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Oneida County. The plaintiff and defendants entered into a written agreement April 28, 1890, by which the former bargained and sold to the latter “ all the lumber belonging to him now in pile at the mill of E. K. Buttrick in Rhinelander, Wis., excepting culls in pile, and excepting timber. . . All to be delivered and shipped on or before September 15, 1890; the quantity of said lumber to be ascertained by estimating •the same in the piles…

Read the full summary

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Oneida County. The plaintiff and defendants entered into a written agreement April 28, 1890, by which the former bargained and sold to the latter “ all the lumber belonging to him now in pile at the mill of E. K. Buttrick in Rhinelander, Wis., excepting culls in pile, and excepting timber. . . All to be delivered and shipped on or before September 15, 1890; the quantity of said lumber to be ascertained by estimating •the same in the piles where the same is now piled.” Each party was to choose one person to estimate the lumber, and they were to estimate it…

1Opinion of the CourtPiNNEY, J.

1. It was agreed that the estimate of the parties chosen to estimate the amount of lumber sold by the plaintiff to the defendants should be conclusive, and the estimate made stands substantially upon the same grounds, and its validity is to be determined by the same principles as are applicable to an award of arbitrators. Their decision ought not to be disturbed, without some statement going to show that it was' made under a mistake or was not honest. Baasen v. Baehr, 7 Wis. 521; Hudson v. McCartney, 33 Wis. 332; Early v. Chippewa L. Co. 68 Wis. 112. It was conceded by appellants’ counsel…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Canfield v. Watertown Fire InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1882
  2. Baasen v. BaehrWisconsin Supreme Court · 1859
  3. Early v. Chippewa Logging Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1887

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Consolidated Water Power Co. v. NashWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
  2. McKenzie v. WarmkaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1978
  3. Wisconsin Sulphite Fibre Co. v. D. K. Jeffris Lumber Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1907
  4. Garstka v. RussoWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
  5. Burnham v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1898

2 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