Legal Opinion

Denham v. Madole

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided January 10, 1928PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCrownhart, J.

The defendants contended that the leased premises were not tenantable because of leakage of water into the basement through the walls; that although at common law there was no implied warranty that the premises would be tenantable, the rule was changed by sec. 234.17, Stats.

The plaintiffs contend that said section is inapplicable to the facts, and that defendants are estopped from denying liability because of their acts relating to the lease and occupancy of the building.

Competent evidence on the part of the plaintiffs. conclusively establishes the following facts: The lease was executed…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Tallman v. . MurphyNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
  2. Vann v. . RouseNew York Court of Appeals · 1884
  3. Meserole v. . HoytNew York Court of Appeals · 1899
  4. Carley v. Liberty Hat Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1911
  5. Meserole v. SinnAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Mottman Mercantile Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1940
  2. Riverfront Lofts Condominium Owners Ass'n v. Milwaukee/Riverfront Properties Ltd. PartnershipDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 2002

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

Powered by the Exa API