Legal Opinion

Wild v. Newton

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 4, 1929PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStevens, J.

1. The right to subscribe for the new insurance stock belonged to Mrs. Newton. Appellants do not question the “well-nigh universal rule that the benefit of a right given by a corporation to its stockholders to subscribe at par, or other fixed amount less than the intrinsic value, for a new issue of stock, whether sold or exercised by taking new stock, is awarded to corpus and not to income, to the remainderman and not to the life tenant.” Estate of Merrill, 196 Wis. 351, 355, 220 N. W. 215.

But the appellants contend that this rule does not apply because, as they assert, the will expresses an…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. D'Ooge v. LeedsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1900
  2. Soehnlein v. SoehnleinWisconsin Supreme Court · 1911
  3. Haugan v. ChesterWisconsin Supreme Court · 1928
  4. Morgan v. Wisconsin Tax CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1928
  5. Estate of DittmerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1928

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Teacher Retirement System v. DuckworthTexas Supreme Court · 1954
  2. Birmingham v. CongerMississippi Supreme Court · 1969
  3. Kuder v. SawyerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1959
  4. Taylor v. Bentinck-SmithMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
  5. Roebken v. CarbysWisconsin Supreme Court · 1939

5 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