Nelson v. Preston
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.
In view of the determination of the trial court and the finding of the nonexistence of an agency, the question turns upon the right of the appellant to have been permitted to amend his pleadings to prove unjust enrichment and “implied” or quasi contract. Quasi contracts are “a class of obligations which are imposed or created by law without regard to the assent of the party bound, on the ground that they are dictated by reason and justice, . . . and the obligation arises not from consent, . . . but from the law or natural equity. Such contracts rest on the equitable principle that a person…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Miller v. . SchlossNew York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Dunnebacke Co. v. PittmanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
- Grossbier v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1921
- Clark v. SloanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
- Graf v. Neith Co-operative Dairy Products Ass'nWisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Puttkammer v. MinthWisconsin Supreme Court · 1978
- S & M Rotogravure Service, Inc. v. BaerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1977
- Schaller v. Marine National Bank of NeenahCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1986
- Arjay Investment Co. v. KohlmetzWisconsin Supreme Court · 1960
- Buckett v. JanteCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2009
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.