Dumke v. Puhlman
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Sheboygan County. The facts will sufficiently appear from the opinion. The defendant appealed from a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. To the point that it was error to permit a plaintiff to answer the question whether the engine furnished was such an engine as was contemplated by the contract, they cited Reynolds v. Shanlcs, 23 Wis. 307; Kelley v. Fond du Lao, 31 id. 179; Mellor v. TJtica, 48 id. 457.
1Opinion of the CourtOetoN, J.
This action was brought to recover the consideration price for a Corliss engine of a certain capacity, with air-pump, condenser, and heater, and Eclipse force-pump, with valves, etc., and a boiler, with appurtenances, set up in the defendant’s mill, according to a written contract between the parties, and for extra work. The only provisions of the contract necessary to be considered on this appeal are that the defendant should make the necessary foundation for the *19engine under the supervision of the plaintiffs, and construct the parts of the mill, make the excavations, foundations, chimney,…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Boden v. MaherWisconsin Supreme Court · 1900
- King Iron Bridge & Manuf'g Co. v. City of St. LouisU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri · 1890
- State Highway Department v. MacDougald Construction Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1960
- Wolf v. Theresa Village Mutual Fire InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1902
- Ryan v. NapierDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1966
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.