Legal Opinion

Swift & Co. v. Geraghty

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 24, 1929PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRosenberry, C. J.

In the briefs and on the oral argument the plaintiff waives any right of recovery on account of the 1926 consignment and seeks recovery only for the *3311925 account amounting to $115.35. The negotiations out of which it is claimed accord and satisfaction arose were had by the representative of the plaintiff- with the attorneys of the defendants. We have read the testimony of the attorneys for the administratrix and find nothing therein to support a finding that the transaction amounted to an accord and satisfaction. .What the representative of the plaintiff sought and what the representative…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Bull v. CoeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  2. P. J. Willis & Brother v. ChowningTexas Supreme Court · 1897
  3. Hubbard v. HaleyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
  4. Minter v. Br. BankSupreme Court of Alabama · 1853
  5. Loverin & Browne Co. v. TravisWisconsin Supreme Court · 1908

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Universal Metals & MacHinery, Inc. v. BohartTexas Supreme Court · 1976
  2. Voight v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1977
  3. United States v. Klebe Tool & Die Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1958
  4. Universal Metals & MacHinery, Inc. v. BohartTexas Supreme Court · 1976
  5. Voight v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1977

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

Powered by the Exa API