Legal Opinion

Arndt Bros. Minkery v. Medford Fur Foods, Inc.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided February 5, 1957PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMartin, C. J.

Ernest and Gerald Arndt are mink ranchers. Defendant is a processor and seller of horse meat, fish, and allied products used as food for mink. The plaintiff partnership had bought mink food from the defendant for about four years.

Defendant’s manager, Ed Amacher, testified as follows with respect to its procedures of processing and handling the food. Horses are slaughtered and the carcasses, kept in a chillroom, temperature 30 to 32 degrees, until the next day. In the morning they are taken out, split into smaller pieces, and ground. The tripe is cut open, washed, and kept in a barrel in cold…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Cohan v. Associated Fur Farms, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1952
  2. McAleavy v. LoweWisconsin Supreme Court · 1951
  3. Walraven v. Sprague, Warner & Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1940

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Perry Creek Cranberry Corp. v. Hopkins Agricultural Chemical Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
  2. Metz v. Medford Fur Foods, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1958
  3. Tri City Fur Foods, Inc. v. AmmermanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1959
  4. Metz v. Medford Fur Foods, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1958
  5. Tri City Fur Foods, Inc. v. AmmermanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1959

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

Powered by the Exa API