Bouck v. Enos
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Winnebago County. The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday: “The defendants are husband and wife. The action is npon a promissory note, dated August 21, 1879, payable to the plaintiff or order, at the bank, for $800, with interest at seven per cent., and to which the husband signed the name of his wife, his own name as agent, and also his own name.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Winnebago County. The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday: “The defendants are husband and wife. The action is npon a promissory note, dated August 21, 1879, payable to the plaintiff or order, at the bank, for $800, with interest at seven per cent., and to which the husband signed the name of his wife, his own name as agent, and also his own name. The complaint contained the ordinary allegations appropriate to the cause of action, including the husband’s agency, and the following: “And the plaintiff alleges that the sole consideration of said note was…
1Opinion of the CourtOassoday, J.
1. There is no exception to any specific portion of the charge. The exception is “ to so much of the following of the charge to the jury in this case.” This is followed by four printed pages, divided up into three sections, each of which contains numerous and independent propositions. The well-established rule, that exceptions so general must be disregarded, precludes us from considering any alleged error in the charge.
2. The court was requested to instruct the jury, in effect, that the plaintiff could not recover unless they found from the evidence that the wife authorized the husband to…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Townley v. Chicago, MilwauKee & St. Paul Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1881
- Krouskop v. ShontzWisconsin Supreme Court · 1881
- Eberhardt v. SangerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1881
- Spensley v. Lancashire InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1882
- Cramer v. HanafordWisconsin Supreme Court · 1881
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- McLimans v. City of LancasterWisconsin Supreme Court · 1885
- Pease v. MagillNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1908
- Hercules Powder Co. v. RichCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1924
- Pluto Powder Co. v. Cuba City State BankWisconsin Supreme Court · 1913
- T. T. Haydock Carriage Co. v. PierWisconsin Supreme Court · 1889
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.