Legal Opinion

Hahn v. Petters & Co.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided February 9, 1926PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEschweiler, J.

This being an action at law to recover for plaintiff’s loss through and by reason of defendants’ fraud, as 'distinguished from an action in equity to rescind, it is necessary that plaintiff allege and show, in addition to the fraud, that he has suffered damage. 26 Corp. Jur. 1167, 1169; 12 Ruling Case Law, 388, 390; Commercial Bank v. Firemen’s Ins. Co. 87 Wis. 297, 302, 58 N. W. 391; Potter v. Necedah L. Co. 105 Wis. 25, 33, 80 N. W. 88, 81 N. W. 118; Denis v. Nu-Way P. C. Co. 170 Wis. 333, 341, 175 *147N. W. 95; International M. Co. v. Priem, 179 Wis. 622, 624, 192 N. W. 68.

In this case there…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Shaw v. GilbertWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
  2. International Milling Co. v. PriemWisconsin Supreme Court · 1923
  3. Palmer v. GoldbergWisconsin Supreme Court · 1906
  4. Commercial Bank of Milwaukee v. Firemen's Insurance Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1894
  5. Heal v. StollWisconsin Supreme Court · 1922

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Wussow v. Commercial Mechanisms, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1980
  2. Widemshek v. FaleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
  3. Stephens v. WheelerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1927
  4. Wisconsin Mortgage & Securities Co. v. KrieselWisconsin Supreme Court · 1927
  5. Morrison v. AllenWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1928

1 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