Ahnapee & Western Railway Co. v. Challoner
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtHallows, J.
The railroad contends there is sufficient evidence upon which the trial court should have reformed the contract and in addition the court erred in not applying the doctrine of estoppel in pais or the doctrine of promissory estoppel. We do not agree and we think the trial court was right in its finding.
An insurance policy like any other contract may be reformed because of mutual mistake when the policy does not contain the provisions intended by the parties to be included. But, the contract must be reformed to conform to some oral agreement or understanding which the written document was…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
- McCoy v. Northwestern Mutual Relief Ass'nWisconsin Supreme Court · 1896
- Farmers Mutual Automobile Insurance v. BechardSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1963
- State Ex Rel. Isham v. MullallyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1961
- Rosenthal v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1914
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Shannon v. ShannonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1989
- State Bank of La Crosse v. ElsenCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1986
- Scott v. SAVERS PROPERTY AND CAS. INS. CO.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 2003
- School Dist. No. 69 of Maricopa County v. AltherrCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1969
- Artmar, Inc. v. United Fire & Casualty Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.