Nickoll v. Racine Cloak & Suit Co.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
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
- Rowell v. SmithWisconsin Supreme Court · 1905
- Fuller-Warren Co. v. HarterWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
- Payne v. VolkmanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1924
- Hale v. KreiselWisconsin Supreme Court · 1927
- West v. HennesseySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1894
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Fitzgerald v. Meissner & Hicks, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1968
- Mickel v. New England Coal & Coke Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1946
- Wagner v. Savage, as Adm'rOregon Supreme Court · 1952
- Laabs v. Tax CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1935
- Jackson v. HarrisCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1930
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.