Pallange v. Mueller
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.
The defect claimed to exist in the complaint is that it is founded on a contract void under the statutes. Sec. 240.10, among other things, in effect requires that every contract to pay a real-estate agent or broker a commission for selling real estate shall be in writing and that it shall describe the real estate, the commission to be paid, and the period during which the agent or broker shall procure a buyer. The purpose of this statute and its interpretation has been considered in a number of cases in this court. Hale v. Kreisel, 194 Wis. 271, 215 N. W. 227; Gifford v. Straub, 172 Wis. 396,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Hale v. KreiselWisconsin Supreme Court · 1927
- Gifford v. StraubWisconsin Supreme Court · 1920
- Brown v. MartyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1920
- Kenner v. Edwards Realty & Finance Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
- Graham v. LampWisconsin Supreme Court · 1921
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Fuchs v. United Motor Stage Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1939
- State Ex Rel. Guste v. Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1988
- Niske v. NackmanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1956
- MS Real Estate Holdings, LLC v. Donald P. Fox Family TrustCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2014