Legal Opinion

Peabody Seating Co. v. Jim Cullen, Inc.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided October 31, 1972No. 132PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRobert W. Hansen, J.

Appellants make three contentions on appeal: (1) That the trial court erred in permitting Peabody to maintain its suit since it commenced the action without a certificate of authority to do business in Wisconsin; (2) that Peabody cannot recover under the bond because it does not have lien rights under the Wisconsin statutes; and (3) that Peabody is precluded from recovering under the bond because it failed to give the ninety-day notice required by the bond. In the order raised, these contentions will be considered.

Certificate of authority.

Appellants contend that Peabody was doing business…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Mitchell v. WESTERN CASAULTY & SURETY CO.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
  2. Southern Surety Co. v. Metropolitan Sewerage CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1923
  3. Bulova Watch Co. v. AndersonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1955
  4. Wisconsin Brick Co. v. National Surety Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1917
  5. Boehck Construction Equipment Corp. v. VoigtWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Leimert v. McCannWisconsin Supreme Court · 1977
  2. In Re Estate of JonesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1976
  3. Amoco Oil Co. v. Capitol Indemnity Corp.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1980
  4. Markham v. MarkhamWisconsin Supreme Court · 1974
  5. Ensz v. Brown Insurance AgencyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1974

13 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