Legal Opinion

Nickoll v. Racine Cloak & Suit Co.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided December 6, 1927PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Crownhárt, J.

The defendants contend that the demurrer reaches back to the complaint, and that the complaint does not state a cause of action, in that it does not allege that plaintiff had a real-estate broker’s license in Wisconsin.

The defendants’ contention in this respect must be sustained. A demurrer reaches back to the first pleading that is fatally defective. Ireland v. Tomahawk L., T. & I. Co. 185 Wis. 148, 150, 200 N. W. 642. Plaintiff was required to have a broker’s license in this state before he was authorized to negotiate a real-estate lease as a broker for another. Sec. 136.01,…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Rowell v. SmithWisconsin Supreme Court · 1905
  2. Fuller-Warren Co. v. HarterWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
  3. Payne v. VolkmanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1924
  4. Hale v. KreiselWisconsin Supreme Court · 1927
  5. West v. HennesseySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1894

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Fitzgerald v. Meissner & Hicks, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Mickel v. New England Coal & Coke Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1946
  3. Wagner v. Savage, as Adm'rOregon Supreme Court · 1952
  4. Laabs v. Tax CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1935
  5. Jackson v. HarrisCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1930

9 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