Murphey v. Weil
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court of Milwaukee county: R. D. MaRshall, Judge. This is an action to recover $12,500, claimed to be due from the defendant to the plaintiff as a balance of the purchase money of certain shares of corporate stock under the terms of the following contract: ' “Agreement made and entered into this 23rd day of March, 1887, by and between H. E. Jacobs and N. 8. Murphey, of the first part, and Bengamin M. Weil, of the second part, all of…
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court of Milwaukee county: R. D. MaRshall, Judge. This is an action to recover $12,500, claimed to be due from the defendant to the plaintiff as a balance of the purchase money of certain shares of corporate stock under the terms of the following contract: ' “Agreement made and entered into this 23rd day of March, 1887, by and between H. E. Jacobs and N. 8. Murphey, of the first part, and Bengamin M. Weil, of the second part, all of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. “ Witnesseth, the parties of the first part agree to sell and deliver to the party of the second part…
1Opinion of the CourtWiNslow, J.
This case was before this court upon a former occasion, and will be found reported in 89 Wis. 146.. The question then before the court was whether the court', below erred in granting a new trial on the ground of inconsistency in the findings of a special verdict which had been, rendered in the case upon a former trial, and it was held! that the new trial was rightly granted. It was held upon that appeal that the patent for the clockwork device, though-formally allowed, was disallowed in substance, because never issued on account of its interference with the Butz patent. The evidence upon this…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- New Haven & Northampton Co. v. HaydenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
- Kirch v. DaviesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1882
- Janesville Cotton Mills v. FordWisconsin Supreme Court · 1892
- Murphey v. WeilWisconsin Supreme Court · 1894
- Morgan v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1892
3Cited by9 opinions
- Wickenhauser v. LehtinenWisconsin Supreme Court · 2007
- Franklin Co-Operative Creamery Ass'n v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1937
- Bauman v. Midland Union InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1952
- Thurston v. Burhett & Beaver Dam Farmers' Mutual Fire InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1898
- Burkett v. Lehmen-Higginson Grocery Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1899
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.