Kelly v. Sullivan
Wisconsin Supreme Court
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
- Seaman v. AschermannWisconsin Supreme Court · 1881
- Trebesch v. TrebeschSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
- Booher v. SlatharWisconsin Supreme Court · 1918
- Karrels v. KarrelsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1939
3Cited by15 opinions
- Wiegand v. GissalWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
- Bunbury v. KraussWisconsin Supreme Court · 1969
- Kovarik v. VeselyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1958
- Stuesser v. EbelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
- Ricchio v. OberstWisconsin Supreme Court · 1977
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.