Legal Opinion

Riepl v. Sardino

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided January 6, 1953Published

1Opinion of the CourtGehl, J.

The trial judge was of the opinion that the portion of the note quoted above is indefinite and uncertain and therefore unenforceable.

Defendants contend that it must be construed to mean that so long as there is no default in payments of interest, taxes, and insurance premiums they have as much time as they desire to pay the principal sum. Their construction would make the contract most unusual and extraordinary. It seems to us to be unlikely that the payee of a note would lend his money with no hope of its repayment until the payor should decide to meet his obligation. An instrument will not…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Bank of Cashton v. La Crosse County Scandinavian Town Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
  2. Gray v. StadlerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
  3. Farmers & Traders Bank v. LairdMissouri Court of Appeals · 1915
  4. Duggan v. KrevonickSupreme Court of Virginia · 1937
  5. Byerly v. RandolphSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1926

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

Powered by the Exa API