Legal Opinion

Bishop v. Hamilton

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 2, 1936PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMartin, J.

The respondent contends that the several investments are voidable at the election of the representatives of the incompetent, because they were sold by Mr. Bishop, as a stockholder, director, and chief executive officer of the Iowa County Bank, to himself in his capacity as guardian of the person and estate of the incompetent.

It is conceded that during the years of 1928, 1929, and 1930, the guardian was the chief executive officer of the Iowa County Bank. Pie was the second largest stockholder. He also served either as cashier or vice-president during said period. That there was a conflict of…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Michoud v. GirodSupreme Court of the United States · 1846
  2. Magruder v. DrurySupreme Court of the United States · 1914
  3. Melms v. Pabst Brewing Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1896
  4. Pabst v. GoodrichWisconsin Supreme Court · 1907
  5. Harrison v. First Wisconsin Trust Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1926

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

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. State v. WoodingtonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
  2. Estate of George v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1936
  3. McDermott v. Lumbermen's National Bank of Chippewa FallsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1940
  4. Cowan v. Hamilton Nat. BankTennessee Supreme Court · 1941
  5. Estate of McCredySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983

15 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