Madison Trust Co. v. Skogstrom
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.
If the debt, evidenced by the written certificate, became the property of respondent December 1, 1933, as ruled by the trial court, there is no estate to be administered, and no property out of which to satisfy the bequest to Mrs. Ferris. Since there was no consideration for an assignment by Crowley to respondent, the correctness of the decision below rests upon the conclusion that the legal effect of all that occurred was a gift to her. The undisputed evidence shows that Mr. Crowley did not direct or authorize a new agreement to be substituted in the place and stead of the one between him…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- McKenzie v. . HarrisonNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Appeal of WalshSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888
- In Re the Judicial Settlement of the Account of CrawfordNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Opitz v. KarelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1903
- Crook v. First National Bank of BarabooWisconsin Supreme Court · 1892
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Rauenhorst v. Comm'rUnited States Tax Court · 2002
- Estate of Detjen v. FriedmannWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
- Hounsell v. Department of TaxationWisconsin Supreme Court · 1948
- Peters v. Peters Auto Sales, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
- Schreiber v. Kellogg-Citizens National BankWisconsin Supreme Court · 1975
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.