Dingman v. Hilberry
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Eiehland county: Geobge Clemeutson, Circuit Judge. Action for specific performance. The facts 'will sufficiently appear from the findings made by the trial court, which are as follows: “(1) The plaintiff Edmund 0. Dingman is a son-in-law of the defendants Alfred Hilberry and Ella Hilberry, his wife, the plaintiff Myrtle Dingman being a daughter of said defendants.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Eiehland county: Geobge Clemeutson, Circuit Judge. Action for specific performance. The facts 'will sufficiently appear from the findings made by the trial court, which are as follows: “(1) The plaintiff Edmund 0. Dingman is a son-in-law of the defendants Alfred Hilberry and Ella Hilberry, his wife, the plaintiff Myrtle Dingman being a daughter of said defendants. The plaintiffs were married in July, 1900, and moved upon the lands in question in this action in March, 1901. “(2) Soon after the marriage of the plaintiffs the defendant Alfred…
1Opinion of the CourtVixje, J.
Defendants claim (1) that' the evidence is too vague, uncertain, and conflicting to establish with the requisite certainty the contract found by the court t'o have been made; (2) that the contract as found by the court is so uncertain and unilateral that it ought not to be enforced by specific performance; (3) that plaintiffs abandoned the contract and have been guilty of laches in, seeking redress; and (4) that it would he inequitable to decree specific performance.
*1761. In view of tbe relation of the parties and the fact that' the contract was oral and entered into more than ten years previous…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Howe v. WatsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1901
- Inglis v. FoheyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1908
- Wall v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1893
- Boyington v. SweeneyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1890
- Mulligan v. AlbertzWisconsin Supreme Court · 1899
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Muller v. CooperSupreme Court of Georgia · 1928
- Pegg v. OlsonWyoming Supreme Court · 1924
- Estate of Shinoe v. ShinoeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
- Beranek v. GohrWisconsin Supreme Court · 1951
- American Metal Products Co. v. A. Geo. Schultz Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1936