Legal Opinion
Pobreslo v. Joseph M. Boyd Co.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Decided May 10, 1932PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtNelson, J.
The plaintiff contends that the assignment herein is wholly void and inoperative because the assignees took immediate possession of the property and assets of the company without furnishing a bond as required by sec. 128.06, Stats., because the giving of the three separate bonds was not in compliance with said section for the reason that the assets of the company greatly exceeded the sum of $30,000; because the assets of the company at no time were ascertained by the oath of witnesses and of the assignor as required by sec. 128.06; because neither the said *25assignment nor a full and true copy…
2Cases cited38 opinions
- Neal v. ClarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Hanover National Bank v. MoysesSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
- New York Central Railroad Company v. WinfieldSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Stellwagen v. ClumSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
- Straton v. NewSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Pobreslo v. Joseph M. Boyd Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Gelatt v. DeDakisWisconsin Supreme Court · 1977
- ADMANCO, Inc. ex rel. Polsky v. 700 Stanton Drive, LLCWisconsin Supreme Court · 2010
- Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. Wolf Furniture House, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1987
- Wisconsin Builders Supply Co. v. PrenticeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1957
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.