Legal Opinion · Dissent

Philipsky v. Scheflow & Monahan

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided November 5, 1935Published

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

  1. Boyd v. Mutual Fire Ass'nWisconsin Supreme Court · 1903
  2. State ex rel. Cornish v. TuttleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1881
  3. Willard v. ReasWisconsin Supreme Court · 1870
  4. Young v. Juneau CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1927
  5. Iverson v. Union Free High School DistrictWisconsin Supreme Court · 1925

11 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