Legal Opinion

Kruger v. Wesner

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided November 7, 1956PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSteinle, J.

It is the position of Walter Kruger that he fully performed his broker’s contract with Reinhold and Lillian Wesner, and that therefore he is entitled to his entire commission. The Wesners contend that since the sale under their contract with Eldridge was not completed, they are not liable for the payment of the commission. They also maintain that their auction-sale contract with Kruger and their sale contract with Eldridge are void and unenforceable, for the reason that the description of the real estate as set forth in those agreements is indefinite, and that it is insufficient to satisfy…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Roche v. SmithMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1900
  2. Harney v. BurhansWisconsin Supreme Court · 1895
  3. Oregon Home Builders v. Montgomery Inv. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1919
  4. Wauwatosa Realty Co. v. PaarWisconsin Supreme Court · 1956
  5. Thiel v. JahnsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1947

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Ash Park, LLC v. Alexander & Bishop, Ltd.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 2015
  2. Mansfield v. SmithWisconsin Supreme Court · 1979
  3. Stuesser v. EbelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
  4. Winston v. MinkinWisconsin Supreme Court · 1974
  5. Wauwatosa Realty Co. v. BishopWisconsin Supreme Court · 1959

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