Legal Opinion

Chadek v. Forest County

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided November 10, 1931PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.

The propriety of bringing this action against the county does not appear to have been challenged. The practice has been in cases of this character to proceed by mandamus against the officers whose duty it is to carry out *87the requirements of the statute. Jefferson Transfer Co. v. Hull, 166 Wis. 438, 166 N. W. 1.

The central question involved in this controversy, however, relates to the right of the trustee to recover the amount for which he brought the action. When the adjudication of bankruptcy occurred the county had in its possession the sum of $1,000, wages or salary earned during the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Metcalf v. BarkerSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
  2. Straton v. NewSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
  3. Jefferson Transfer Co. v. HullWisconsin Supreme Court · 1918

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Elliott v. ReganWisconsin Supreme Court · 1956
  2. State Ex Rel. Adams County State Bank v. KurthWisconsin Supreme Court · 1939
  3. In re SmithDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 1934
  4. Prielipp v. Sauk CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
  5. Opinion No. Oag 106-79, (1979), Wisconsin Attorney General Reports1979

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

Powered by the Exa API