Wooley v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for La Crosse county: E. 0. Higbee, Circuit Judge. The plaintiffs are copartners in the city of La Crosse, doing business under the name of Wooley & Hanson. On or about May 30, 1906, plaintiffs and defendant entered into a contract whereby in consideration of the sum of $6,605.02 plaintiffs agreed to furnish the material and to do certain paving work on and around the station grounds of defendant in the city of Madison.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for La Crosse county: E. 0. Higbee, Circuit Judge. The plaintiffs are copartners in the city of La Crosse, doing business under the name of Wooley & Hanson. On or about May 30, 1906, plaintiffs and defendant entered into a contract whereby in consideration of the sum of $6,605.02 plaintiffs agreed to furnish the material and to do certain paving work on and around the station grounds of defendant in the city of Madison. The contract provided that the railway company was to furnish free transportation over its line for materials entering into the…
1Opinion of the CourtDarnes, J.
Appellant assigns as error (1) refusal of tie court to set aside tie first finding of tie jury and grant a new trial; (2) tie instruction given to tie jury under question 1 of tie special verdict; (3) refusal of tie court to grant judgment' for the defendant on tie ground that a voluntary payment of tie demurrage charges had been made; (4) in instructing tie jury as to what would, constitute duress.
Tie rules governing demurrage charges were offered in evidence. But two of them would seem to have any application to tie case. These are secs. 1 and 2 of rule 5. Sec. 1 provides that' “cars…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Price v. Bank of PoynetteWisconsin Supreme Court · 1910
3Cited by1 opinion
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1933