Nicoud v. Boley
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.
Appellant bases his appeal on two propositions: (1) that the actual consummation of the sale was not a condition precedent to the payment of the commission; (2) if the consummation of the deal was a condition precedent to the payment of the commission, then that condition was waived and an estoppel to insist upon it existed.
Recovery is sought under the contract of May 28th, which is quoted in full in the statement of facts. This agreement contains such definite wording as that the commission is “to be paid on the day the conveyances are executed.” This pro-visión takes the case out from under…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Amies v. WesnofskeNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
- Dean v. WendebergWisconsin Supreme Court · 1921
- Lesser v. W.B. McGerry Co., Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1932
3Cited by6 opinions
- Tant v. GeeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1941
- Hamrick v. Cooper River Lumber Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1953
- Ikeoka v. KongHawaii Supreme Court · 1963
- Wauwatosa Realty Co. v. PaarWisconsin Supreme Court · 1956
- Gage Corp. v. Tamareed Co.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2018
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.