Legal Opinion

American Metal Products Co. v. A. Geo. Schultz Co.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided April 28, 1936PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.

Respondent made the agreement with appellant set out in the statement of facts. Under the stipulations of that agreement an easement over respondent’s land was provided for, and a sidetrack bringing switching facilities to the boundary of appellant’s land was to be constructed by respondent. The appellant is entitled to specific performance of the contract on respondent’s part: (1) If the time has arrived for the performance of this covenant; that is, if the clause “at such time as it [respondent] will begin building operations” can fairly be construed to refer to the time of building the…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Nunez v. DautelSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
  2. Ullsperger v. MeyerIllinois Supreme Court · 1905
  3. Noland v. BullOregon Supreme Court · 1893
  4. Inglis v. FoheyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1908
  5. Randall v. JohnsonMississippi Supreme Court · 1881

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Chevron Chemical Co. v. Deloitte & ToucheCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1992
  2. Brevig v. WebsterCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1979
  3. B&D Contractors, Inc. v. Arwin Window Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2006
  4. Praefke v. Sentry InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2004

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API