Herman v. Martineau
Wisconsin Supreme Court
ERROR, xo Milwaukee county court. This was an action of assumpsit brought in a Justice’s Court, to recover ten dollars damages, for the services of the plaintiff Herman, in procuring a tenant for the farm of the defendant, and he the defendant, pleaded the general issue, and on the trial before the justice, the following testimony was produced, as appears by the justice’s return.
Read the full summary
ERROR, xo Milwaukee county court. This was an action of assumpsit brought in a Justice’s Court, to recover ten dollars damages, for the services of the plaintiff Herman, in procuring a tenant for the farm of the defendant, and he the defendant, pleaded the general issue, and on the trial before the justice, the following testimony was produced, as appears by the justice’s return. Henry Bielfeldt, a witness produced and sworn, and examined by the plaintiff, testified as follows: “ I ^now fhe parties. The papers were drawn up hy Mr. Martineau and tenant of his farm. The plaintiff was there ; he…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Ckawford, J.
We can discern no reason wiry tire plaintiff in error should not have recovered in this suit. He was employed hy the defendant in error to do a particular act, namely, to obtain for him a tenant for his farm, but no discretion or control over the conditions of the letting of the farm was entrusted to him. The procuring of a person, willing to rent the farm, and with whom Martineau himself agreed upon and settled the contract of letting, was a complete performance of his agreement. There was no opportunity here for the violation of good faith on the part of Herman, and…
2Cited by19 opinions
- Stewart v. MatherWisconsin Supreme Court · 1873
- Finnerty v. FritzSupreme Court of Colorado · 1879
- Childs v. PtomeyMontana Supreme Court · 1896
- Alexander v. North-Western Christian UniversityIndiana Supreme Court · 1877
- Barry v. SchmidtWisconsin Supreme Court · 1883
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.