Legal Opinion

Genni v. Hahn

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided April 12, 1892PublishedCited by 3 opinions

APPEAL from the County Court of Waukesha County. Tbe facts are sufficiently stated in tbe opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtOetoN, J.

Tbe plaintiff agreed with the defendant to dig a well for him on bis farm for one dollar a foot for tbe first twenty feet, and after that for a quarter more for each foot. Tbe suit is for digging the well sixty-five feet deep at that price. It is alleged in tbe defendant’s answer that tbe contract was that the plaintiff “ was to furnish him with a sufficient supply of water (in said well)'for his stock and family.” On the trial tbe plaintiff, as a witness, testified that “ be.agreed with Hahn to furnish him a sufficient quan*91tity of water” in said well. “For. bis stock and family” may well be…

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. Ylijarvi v. BrockphalerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1942
  2. Andriola v. MilliganNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1948
  3. Milaeger Well Drilling Co. v. Muskego Rendering Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1957

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API