Wachowski v. Lutz
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtOwen, J.
The court construed the action as one at law for the recovery of damages. The appellants, contend that it is an equitable action for rescission and that the judgment should have been for a cancellation of the deeds and a restoration of the status quo, or such other equitable relief as may be appropriate in the premises. There is no express or implied allegation in the complaint that plaintiffs acted with reasonable promptness in rescinding or offering to rescind, or in bringing the action, after the discovery of the alleged fraud. The court found as a fact that
“The plaintiff has, since being…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Martens v. ReillyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
- Miranovitz v. GeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1916
- McLennan v. ChurchWisconsin Supreme Court · 1916
- Mueller v. MichelsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1924
- Patnode v. WestenhaverWisconsin Supreme Court · 1902
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Krzysko v. GaudynskiWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
- Sidney Morris & Co. v. NATIONAL ASS'N OF STATIONERS, ETC.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1930
- City of Kiel v. Frank Shoe Manufacturing Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1944
- Cranston v. BluhmWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
- Field v. OberwortmannAppellate Court of Illinois · 1957
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.