Brinker v. Meyer
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Ashland County. Action upon a bond conditioned for the payment of all the debts owing by a certain firm at the time of its dissolution. The facts will sufficiently appear from the opinion. to the point that all contemporaneous written agreements were admissible in evidence and should be construed together, cited 1 Greenl.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Ashland County. Action upon a bond conditioned for the payment of all the debts owing by a certain firm at the time of its dissolution. The facts will sufficiently appear from the opinion. to the point that all contemporaneous written agreements were admissible in evidence and should be construed together, cited 1 Greenl. Ev. sec. 286; Hahn v. Doolittle, 18 Wis. 196; Ballston Spa Bank v. Marine Bank, 16 id. 125; ET/more v. Hqffmcm,_ 6 id. 68; Goojper v. Tarppcm, 4 id. 362, and note; Norton v. Kearney, 10 id. 443.
1Opinion of the CourtOetoN, J.
The respondent, Henry Brinlcer, and the appellant J. G. Meyer were partners in the lime and cement business. The respondent sold out his interest in said business and in its credits to the new firm,'consisting of said J. G. Meyer and T. F. Hubbell, and the firm of Meyer da Hubbell, as principals, and Jolm MeGarf/y and Fames M. Haggerty, as sureties, gave the respondent a bond indemnifying him against all debts and claims against the old firm. This action is on the bond, alleging that they were indebted to R. O. Dun &>Co. in the sum of $15, and that said R. 0. Dun & Co. obtained judgment…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Jilson v. GilbertWisconsin Supreme Court · 1870
- Knox v. CliffordWisconsin Supreme Court · 1875
- Pool v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1881
- Racine County Bank v. KeepWisconsin Supreme Court · 1860
- Strachan v. MuxlowWisconsin Supreme Court · 1869
3Cited by1 opinion
- Johnson v. WilliardWisconsin Supreme Court · 1892