Peabody Seating Co. v. Jim Cullen, Inc.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
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
- Mitchell v. WESTERN CASAULTY & SURETY CO.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
- Southern Surety Co. v. Metropolitan Sewerage CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1923
- Bulova Watch Co. v. AndersonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1955
- Wisconsin Brick Co. v. National Surety Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1917
- Boehck Construction Equipment Corp. v. VoigtWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Leimert v. McCannWisconsin Supreme Court · 1977
- In Re Estate of JonesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1976
- Amoco Oil Co. v. Capitol Indemnity Corp.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1980
- Markham v. MarkhamWisconsin Supreme Court · 1974
- Ensz v. Brown Insurance AgencyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1974
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.