Legal Opinion

Douglass v. Ransom

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided October 13, 1931PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The following opinion was filed June 22, 1931 :

FowleR, J..

The appellant’s claims may be summarized as that the court erred in finding that (1) the abstract furnished does not show a merchantable title; (2) the contract is free from fraud; (3) the plaintiff has at all times been able and willing to perform his part-of the contract; (4) the reasonable cost of perfecting the title and completing an abstract is $150; (5) in entering judgment as rendered; and (6) in not receiving testimony of witnesses that the title shown by the abstract is merchantable.

As to (2), (3), and (4) we will only say…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Brackenridge v. Claridge & PayneTexas Supreme Court · 1898
  2. Howe v. CoatesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
  3. Moser v. . CochraneNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
  4. Evans v. GerryIllinois Supreme Court · 1898
  5. Larson v. ThomasSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1927

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Zuelke v. GergoWisconsin Supreme Court · 1951
  2. Baldwin v. AndersonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1968
  3. Bankers Trust Co. of California, N.A. v. BregantCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2003
  4. Henschke v. YoungSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1947
  5. Haumersen v. SladkyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1936

7 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