Legal Opinion

Forgan v. Smedal

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided February 10, 1931PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtNelson, J.

This action was tried before the court, without a jury, upon a stipulated state of facts which disclosed substantially the following situation: Burnstine Motor Sales Company of Chicago, Illinois, on the 22d day of July, 1929, sold to one Eleanor Schlegel of Chicago, Illinois, a Chrysler automobile. At the time of such sale the seller and buyer entered into a conditional sales contract wherein the buyer agreed to pay the seller a balance of $758.06 in sixteen equal monthly instalments beginning the 22d day of August, 1929. This contract was thereafter duly assigned by the seller to the…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Goetschius v. BrightmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1927
  2. Thayer Mercantile Co. v. First National BankSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1922
  3. Forgan v. BainbridgeArizona Supreme Court · 1928
  4. Commercial Credit Corp. v. SmithSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1930
  5. Morey & Co. v. SchaadSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1923

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Hoffman v. PalmerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1942
  2. C. I. T. Corp. v. GuySupreme Court of Virginia · 1938
  3. People's Savings & Trust Co. v. Sheboygan Machine Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
  4. State Ex Rel. Melentowich v. KlinkWisconsin Supreme Court · 1982
  5. Confidential Loan & Mortgage Co. v. HardgroveWisconsin Supreme Court · 1951

7 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