Legal Opinion

Rietbrock v. Studds

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 3, 1952PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Gehl, ].

Defendant contends that the note and agreement, construed as one instrument, are void as an agreement to circumvent the bankruptcy laws. His attack is directed against the provision of paragraph 6, that defendant will not in the event of bankruptcy proceedings list the note as a dischargeable debt. He urges that it is illegal because its performance is forbidden by statute or is made a crime; specifically, that its performance is forbidden by sec. 152, 18 U. S. Code (1946 ed.), Supp. IV, which provides:

“Whoever knowingly and fraudulently makes a false oath or account in or in relation…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Zavelo v. ReevesSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
  2. Wight v. RindshopfWisconsin Supreme Court · 1877
  3. Meyer v. PriceNew York Court of Appeals · 1929
  4. Rock v. EkernWisconsin Supreme Court · 1916
  5. Lowe v. CrockerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1913

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Schara v. ThiedeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1973
  2. Shea v. GrafeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1979

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

Powered by the Exa API