Legal Opinion

Chimekas v. Marvin

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided November 24, 1964PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCurrie, C. J.

The trial court correctly held that the cause of action attempted to be pleaded in the complaint was one at law for fraud. While the word “warranted” is used in one place and “breach of warranty” in another, the other allegations clearly establish the nature of the action as one in tort for fraud and not in contract for breach of warranty.

While the complaint alleges that plaintiffs Chimekas assigned all their rights under the contract to plaintiffs Cha-loupkas, this is not an allegation that the former assigned their tort cause of action for fraud to the latter. Thus we reach the same…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. John V. Farwell Co. v. WolfWisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
  2. Morawetz v. Sun Insurance OfficeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
  3. Anderson v. Tri-State Home Improvement Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1955
  4. Zartner v. HolzhauerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
  5. Marshfield Clinic v. DoegeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1955

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Ollerman v. O'Rourke Co., Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1980
  2. Louis Pagoudis v. Marcus KeidlWisconsin Supreme Court · 2023
  3. Nichols v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
  4. Scott Paper Company v. Fort Howard Paper CompanyDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1972
  5. Northern State Bank v. BiechlerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1971

1 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