Douglass v. Ransom
Wisconsin Supreme Court
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
- Brackenridge v. Claridge & PayneTexas Supreme Court · 1898
- Howe v. CoatesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
- Moser v. . CochraneNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
- Evans v. GerryIllinois Supreme Court · 1898
- Larson v. ThomasSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1927
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Zuelke v. GergoWisconsin Supreme Court · 1951
- Baldwin v. AndersonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1968
- Bankers Trust Co. of California, N.A. v. BregantCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2003
- Henschke v. YoungSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1947
- Haumersen v. SladkyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1936
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.