Legal Opinion

Fleischman v. Zimmermann

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided January 9, 1951PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBROadfoot, J.

The principal contention of the appellant is that the option is invalid: (1) Because appellant’s wife, who had an interest as joint tenant in said property, did not sign the same and did not authorize her husband to sign it in her behalf; (2) because the instrument is indefinite as to time; and (3) because there was no consideration for the option.

We do not agree with this contention. The appellant’s wife is not a party to this action. No claim is made that she is liable to the respondent for failing to convey the property in question, nor is any claim made that the appellant acted as agent…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Peterson v. ChaseWisconsin Supreme Court · 1902
  2. Arentsen v. MorelandWisconsin Supreme Court · 1904
  3. Barnhart v. SternWisconsin Supreme Court · 1923
  4. Anderson v. RiegelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
  5. W. C. Goerke Motor Co. v. LonerganWisconsin Supreme Court · 1940

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Kuhfeld v. KuhfeldSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1980
  2. Brauer v. HobbsMichigan Court of Appeals · 1986
  3. Megal v. KohlhardtWisconsin Supreme Court · 1960
  4. William B. Tanner Co. v. Sparta-Tomah Broadcasting Co.District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 1982

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API