Pietsch v. Milbrath
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court of Milwaukee county: J. 0. Ludwig-, Judge. Action by stockholders of a corporation to enforce an alleged promoter’s liability. The complaint was held sufficient in that regard upon two previous appeals. Pietsch v. Krause, 112 Wis. 418, 88 N. W. 223, and 116 Wis. 344, 93 N. W. 9. In the report of the first appeal a full statement thereof will be found.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court of Milwaukee county: J. 0. Ludwig-, Judge. Action by stockholders of a corporation to enforce an alleged promoter’s liability. The complaint was held sufficient in that regard upon two previous appeals. Pietsch v. Krause, 112 Wis. 418, 88 N. W. 223, and 116 Wis. 344, 93 N. W. 9. In the report of the first appeal a full statement thereof will be found. The issues raised by the pleadings were decided substantially to this effect: Plaintiffs are members of defendant corporation, becoming such by taking stock therein on or about the time of its…
1Opinion
Tbe respondents moved for a bearing, and tbe following opinion was filed January 31, 1905:
Maeshall, J.
Tbe motion for rehearing, in this case, as all such motions wbicb are made in tbe proper professional spirit are, was welcomed here and has received consideration. There was no need whatever for tbe learned counsel’s apology for making it. It were better if they bad omitted from tbe argument tbe words “Well, as I understand tbe aversion of this court to rebearings.” It involves an assumption tbat has no foundation whatever. This court has no “aversion” to tbe assertion by any attorney of any…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Bailey v. GloverSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Vance v. VanceSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Brown v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1899
- Demarest v. WynkoopNew York Court of Chancery · 1817
- Rowell v. SmithWisconsin Supreme Court · 1905
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.