Austin v. Nickerson
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the County Court of Milwaukee County. Action on a promissory note for $20, as the difference in plaintiff’s favor in the value of two horses exchanged by the parties. Yerdict for defendant. Motion for judgment for plaintiff non obstante veredicto, and also a subsequent motion for a new trial, denied. The grounds of the motion will appear from the opinion.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the County Court of Milwaukee County. Action on a promissory note for $20, as the difference in plaintiff’s favor in the value of two horses exchanged by the parties. Yerdict for defendant. Motion for judgment for plaintiff non obstante veredicto, and also a subsequent motion for a new trial, denied. The grounds of the motion will appear from the opinion. Plaintiff appealed from a judgment for defendant. relied on Stever v. Lamoure, Snp. to Hill & Denio, 852-57; and Jaclcson v. Wetherill, 7 S. & R., 480.
1Opinion of the CourtCole, J.
The counsel for the plaintiff insists that the motion for judgment non obstante veredicto should have been granted, because the answer set up ,no defense' — neither fraud, nor breach of warranty. As a third defense, by way of counter-claim, it is alleged, that the plaintiff agreed to exchange a certain horse owned by him, for a horse then owned by the defendant, and that the defendant agreed to pay him, as a difference in their value, the sum of $20; “that, "for the purpose of inducing the defendant to make such exchange, the plaintiff did then and there represent to the defendant that his…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Hoffman v. DixonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1900
- Frey v. FailesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
- Pierce v. CareyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1875
- Smith v. ReedWisconsin Supreme Court · 1910
- Neave v. ArntzWisconsin Supreme Court · 1882
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.