Evens & Howard Fire Brick Co. v. Hadfield
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: I). H. Johnson, Circuit Judge. The action is against the defendant alone for goods sold.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: I). H. Johnson, Circuit Judge. The action is against the defendant alone for goods sold. The defendant had carried on business at Milwaukee under the firm name “Hadfield & Co.” In January, 1892, he bought the entire business, and continued it in his own name, “ Joseph Hadfield,” or by his initial, “ J. Hadfieldfi indifferently, until November, 1892, when he sold out the business to Julia P. Hadfield, his son’s wife, and her mother. From this time the business was carried on in the firm name of “ J. Hadfield & Co.,” with the…
1Opinion of the CourtHewman, J.
The first error claimed is that it was error to receive evidence tending to show that defendant was es-topped to deny that he was one of the firm of J. Hadfield & Co., because such estoppel had not been pleaded. But it appears that this evidence was received without objection by the defendant on that ground. Hot having objected on the trial, it is too late to raise the objection for the first time in this court. It must now be held to have been waived.
It is further urged that the evidence which tends to show an estoppel is insufficient to sustain the verdict. The defendant had been carrying…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Thayer v. HumphreyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1895
- Brawley v. MitchellWisconsin Supreme Court · 1896
- Smith v. CookeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1869
- Keith Bros. v. StilesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1896
- Thayer v. GossWisconsin Supreme Court · 1895
3Cited by3 opinions
- Bartlett v. CloughWisconsin Supreme Court · 1896
- Pratt v. HawesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1903
- Mandelker v. GoldsmithWisconsin Supreme Court · 1922