Legal Opinion

Estate of Fritz v. Tiernan

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided December 4, 1934PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtRosenberry, C. J.

A contention made on behalf of the executor will be first disposed of as it relates to the jurisdiction of the court. The executor contends that the remedy provided by sec. 270, title 40, USCA, is exclusive and for that reason claimant cannot maintain its cause in the county court of Dane county. It is considered that this contention is without merit. Claimant does not seek to recover on the bond nor on the ground that if the surety of Fritz were compelled to pay the claim, Fritz would be liable to the bonding company. Claimant here bases its right to recover upon what it claims to be an…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Hot Springs Concrete Co. v. RosamondSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. American Creosote Works, Inc. v. Caltoman Contractors, Inc.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1964

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

Powered by the Exa API