Legal Opinion

Kelly v. Sullivan

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided November 20, 1947PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFaiRchild, J.

Appellant’s main contention is that his agreement with the respondent was not a valid contract because the recited consideration of $5 was not paid and because no description- of the property was given in the writing of November £4, 1945.

If it was otherwise valid, the November 24th agreement would be enforceable even if the phrase, “in consideration of $5,” had not been included. It is clear from the rest of the writing that there is ample consideration for the seller’s promise to convey a warranty .deed, for the buyer in effect promises to pay the sum of $8,600 mentioned in the agreement.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Seaman v. AschermannWisconsin Supreme Court · 1881
  2. Trebesch v. TrebeschSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
  3. Booher v. SlatharWisconsin Supreme Court · 1918
  4. Karrels v. KarrelsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1939

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Wiegand v. GissalWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
  2. Bunbury v. KraussWisconsin Supreme Court · 1969
  3. Kovarik v. VeselyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1958
  4. Stuesser v. EbelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
  5. Ricchio v. OberstWisconsin Supreme Court · 1977

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

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

Powered by the Exa API