Legal Opinion

Schultz v. Andrus

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided October 10, 1922PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDoerfler, J.

Where one renders valuable services for another, as a rule a contract to pay a reasonable value for such services will be implied.

However, “Where near relatives by blood or marriage reside together as one common family, and one of them renders services to another, and such other furnishes him board and lodging or other necessaries or comforts, a presumption arises that neither party, intended tO' receive or' to pay compensation for the services rendered on the one hand, or for the board and lodging or other necessaries or comforts on the other; that they were intended as mutual acts of…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Manning v. School District No. 6Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1905
  2. Estate of KesslerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1894
  3. Hunt v. TuttleSupreme Court of Iowa · 1904
  4. Ecker v. IsaacsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
  5. Werre v. Northwest Thresher Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1911

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Carroll v. Stryker Corp.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2011
  2. Gorton v. Hostak, Henzl & Bichler, S.C.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Milwaukee County v. WaltherWisconsin Supreme Court · 1975
  4. United States ex rel. Farwell, Ozmun, Kirk & Co. v. Shea-Adamson Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1937
  5. E. H. Marhoefer, Jr., Co. v. Mount Sinai, Inc.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1961

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

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

Powered by the Exa API