Legal Opinion
Bornfleth v. Hoeppner
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Decided November 1, 1966PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHeffernan, J.
Did Elsie and Emil enter into a contract to make a will?
In Schwartz v. Schwartz (1956), 273 Wis. 404, 411, 78 N, W. (2d) 912, following the principle established in Doyle v. Fischer (1924), 183 Wis. 599, 198 N. W. 763, we adopted the rule stated in 169 A. L. R. 9, 69, as follows:
*343“A will which is jointly executed may furnish in itself prima facie proof that it was executed pursuant to a contract between the testators, notwithstanding it does not expressly purport to have been made pursuant to contract, does not contain the word ‘contract’ or ‘agreement,’ or include an express promise that the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Tweeddale v. TweeddaleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1903
- Doyle v. FischerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1924
- Pederson v. First National Bank of SuperiorWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
- Chandler v. Estate of RogersWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
- Schwartz v. SchwartzWisconsin Supreme Court · 1956
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Chayka v. SantiniWisconsin Supreme Court · 1970
- Sipple v. ZimmermanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1968
- Gename v. BensonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
- Bettencourt v. BettencourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1972
- Pindel v. CzerniejewskiCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1994
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.