Philipsky v. Scheflow & Monahan
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1DissentFowler, J.
The complaint alleges that'Zar-ling was employed by Schefiow; that E. M. Schefiow and *319“one Monahan were copartners, doing business under the firm name of Scheflow & Monahan,” and owned a truck which was used by Scheflow “in and about his business;” that Zarling was employed by Scheflow as the driver of said truck; and that plaintiff was injured by the negligence of Zarling in suddenly starting the truck while the plaintiff was getting upon it. A demurrer in the form following was interposed:
“Now come the above named defendants and demur to the complaint of the plaintiff on the ground that it…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Boyd v. Mutual Fire Ass'nWisconsin Supreme Court · 1903
- State ex rel. Cornish v. TuttleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1881
- Willard v. ReasWisconsin Supreme Court · 1870
- Young v. Juneau CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1927
- Iverson v. Union Free High School DistrictWisconsin Supreme Court · 1925
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.