Legal Opinion

Hartman v. Loverud

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided February 15, 1938PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFowler, J.

The claim of appellants is that Mrs. Clancey created by parol a trust, of which Mr. Loverud was trustee, for the benefit of Johanna Masted and Mrs. Dearborn, and that the $4,000 trust fund must be paid over to Johanna Masted and the estate of Mrs. Dearborn.

Mr. Loverud testified that on April 7, 1930, Mrs. Clancey delivered to him a $7,500 mortgage and mortgage note, that they thereafter remained in his possession until they were fully paid, and that all but $4,000 of the avails were paid to Mrs. Clancey in part prior to her death and in part into her estate. Pie further testified that at the…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Harrigan v. GilchristWisconsin Supreme Court · 1904
  2. Miller v. ThatcherTexas Supreme Court · 1853
  3. Quass v. Milwaukee Gas Light Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1919
  4. Dupont v. JonetWisconsin Supreme Court · 1917
  5. Geuder, Paeschke & Frey Co. v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1911

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Wesley Heat Treating Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1958
  2. Swazee v. LeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1951
  3. State Ex Rel. Kapusta v. WeirWisconsin Supreme Court · 1960
  4. Wesley Heat Treating Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1958

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

Powered by the Exa API