Butler v. Davis
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of tbe county court of Waukesha county: M. S. Gbiswold, Judge. This is an action to recover for services and materials furnished in drilling a well.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of tbe county court of Waukesha county: M. S. Gbiswold, Judge. This is an action to recover for services and materials furnished in drilling a well. The plaintiff claimed in his complaint that on November 25, 1901, he contracted with the defendant to drill a well upon the defendant’s farm at the price of $1 per foot for drilling and 65 cents per foot for casing, and that under this contract he drilled 24-2 feet, and put in the same amount of casing, on which contract $175 was paid February 11, 1902; that on April 14, 1.902, the parties made another agreement, by which…
1Opinion of the CourtWiNSLow, J.
Tbe main question at issue between tbe parties was wbetber tbe contract was simply .to bore a well at a certain price per foot or wbetber tbe plaintiff, in addition, guaranteed to obtain a sufficient supply of water for tbe defendant’s farm purposes. Upon this question most of tbe minor questions binged. Tbe evidence was’ in direct conflict upon tbe question, and it seems to bave been fairly and fully •submitted to tbe jury, wbo returned a verdict in favor of tbe plaintiff’s version. While many exceptions were taken, there are only'a few of them which are tangible or worthy of serious…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Davis v. MerrickNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1959
- Borg v. DowningWisconsin Supreme Court · 1936
- Thomas v. Kanawha Valley Traction Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1913
- Knoblock v. ArenguenaIdaho Supreme Court · 1963
- Lemke v. HageWisconsin Supreme Court · 1910
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.