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

  1. Briggs v. MillerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1922
  2. O'Donnell v. City of New LondonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1902
  3. Bank of River Falls v. German American Insurance Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1888
  4. Taylor v. DavisWisconsin Supreme Court · 1892

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Purtell v. TehanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
  2. Falk v. City of WhitewaterWisconsin Supreme Court · 1974
  3. Black Eagle Oil Co. v. Globe Oil & Refining Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1958
  4. Ritterbusch v. RitterbuschWisconsin Supreme Court · 1971
  5. Horlick v. SwobodaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1936

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