Seyring v. Eschweiler
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Milwaukee County- Plaintiff is a surveyor, and did professional work at the request of defendant, worth $25. This action is to recover-therefor. It was commenced in justice’s court,-and appealed to the superior court. The defense is that the wort was done fora corporation'known as the Cement Land Company, and not for the defendant.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Milwaukee County- Plaintiff is a surveyor, and did professional work at the request of defendant, worth $25. This action is to recover-therefor. It was commenced in justice’s court,-and appealed to the superior court. The defense is that the wort was done fora corporation'known as the Cement Land Company, and not for the defendant. The defendant admits that he engaged plaintiff to do the -surveying, but testified that he informed him at the time that the work was to be done for and on account of the Cement Land Company and not the defendant. The plaintiff…
1Opinion of the CourtLyon, C. J.
Undoubtedly the court instructed the jury correctly on the law of the case, for, if the jury believed the testimony of the plaintiff (as they manifestly did), a verdict for him was the inevitable result. It might have a,idpd the jury had the court stated to them the rules of law by which they were to determine to whom the credit was given — as, that if defendant told plaintiff when he employed him that the work was to be done for the Ce.ment Company, and did not agree to be personally responsible therefor, the jury should find that the credit was given to the Cement Company. But the court was…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Howard v. Beldenville Lumber Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1906
- Zweifel v. Milwaukee Automobile Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
- Coppins v. Town of JeffersonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1906
- Miles v. StankeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1902