Legal Opinion

Hainz v. Kurth

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided March 15, 1938PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFritz, J.

Upon this appeal the defendants assign as error that the question submitted to the jury in respect to the issue as to whether a deed was to be delivered without the alleged restriction against the use of the premises was not in proper form; and that the jury’s verdict and the court’s finding on that issue was contrary to the evidence. Apparently no objection was taken on the trial as to the form of the question submitting that issue to the jury. Consequently, a mere defect in the form thereof, which could have been corrected if timely objection had been made thereto on the trial, does not…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Cumps v. KiyoWisconsin Supreme Court · 1899
  2. Grice v. WoodworthIdaho Supreme Court · 1904
  3. Rosenthal v. PleckWisconsin Supreme Court · 1918
  4. Warsco v. Oshkosh Savings & Trust Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1926
  5. Stotts v. StottsMichigan Supreme Court · 1917

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Jefferson v. TomCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
  2. Radtke v. RadtkeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1945
  3. Siegel v. ClemonsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1954

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

Powered by the Exa API