Legal Opinion

Park Falls State Bank v. Fordyce

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided February 9, 1932PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The following opinion was filed October 13, 1931:

Fowler, J.

The bank assigns as error the conclusion of the trial court that it was under moral obligation to protect the defendant; that the action of its officers in taking over the defendant’s notes was invalid for want of consideration and ultra vires; that there was no ratification of the transaction by either the stockholders or the directors, if in law it was subject to ratification; and claims that the bank is entitled to rescind the ttansaction and recover the full amount paid to the defendant for his notes less payments received by it…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Muir v. KaneWashington Supreme Court · 1909
  2. Melchoir v. McCartyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1872
  3. Mohr v. RickgauerNebraska Supreme Court · 1908
  4. Bagaeff v. ProkopikMichigan Supreme Court · 1920
  5. Hooker v. KnabWisconsin Supreme Court · 1870

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Estate of Hatten v. MonstedWisconsin Supreme Court · 1939
  2. Odell v. SmithWisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
  3. Elbinger v. Capitol & Teutonia Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
  4. Homefinders v. LawrenceIdaho Supreme Court · 1959
  5. Krause v. SwansonNebraska Supreme Court · 1942

16 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