Legal Opinion
Eiche v. Wallrabenstein
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Decided May 1, 1934PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRosenberry, C. J.
It is the contention of-the defend- - ants that the promise alleged in the complaint in order to be valid must be in writing; that failing to allege it is in writing, the complaint fails to state a cause of action. .
Sec. 241.02, Stats., provides:
“Agreements, what must be written. In the following cases every agreement shall be void unless such agreement or some note or memorandum thereof, expressing the con*313sideration, be in writing and subscribed by the party charged therewith:
“(1) • • •
“(2) Every special promise to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another.”
It is not necessary…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Briggs v. MillerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1922
- O'Donnell v. City of New LondonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1902
- Bank of River Falls v. German American Insurance Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1888
- Taylor v. DavisWisconsin Supreme Court · 1892
3Cited by6 opinions
- Purtell v. TehanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
- Falk v. City of WhitewaterWisconsin Supreme Court · 1974
- Black Eagle Oil Co. v. Globe Oil & Refining Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1958
- Ritterbusch v. RitterbuschWisconsin Supreme Court · 1971
- Horlick v. SwobodaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1936
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.