Legal Opinion

Albrent v. Spencer

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided March 5, 1957PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSteinle, J.

The plaintiff contends here, as she did below, that parol evidence is admissible to establish the true intent of the parties, viz., that the assignment covered only the cash surrender value; further, that there is an ambiguity in the written instrument relating to the option of Albrent to repurchase in event the sale of the stock to Clintonville Transfer Lines was not consummated, — the contract being silent as to Albrent’s right to reacquire the insurance, and there being no provision as to disposition of the proceeds in the event of Albrent’s death after the transfer of the insurance, but…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Warnock v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
  2. Opitz v. KarelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1903
  3. Klueter v. Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1910
  4. Strike v. Wisconsin Odd Fellows Mutual Life InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
  5. Nelson v. La Crosse Trailer Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1949

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Secor v. Pioneer Foundry Co. Inc.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1969
  2. North American Co. for Life & Health Insurance v. LewisDistrict Court, S.D. Mississippi · 2008
  3. Albrent v. SpencerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1958
  4. American Western Life Insurance Co. v. HookerUtah Supreme Court · 1980
  5. American Western Life Insurance Co. v. HookerUtah Supreme Court · 1980

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