Legal Opinion

Bowe v. La Buy

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided April 3, 1934PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.

One cannot be protected against a claim by operation of the statute of limitations where the lapse *3of time has occurred because of acts in which the debtor has intentionally participated for the purpose of inducing extension of credit, and which continued the debt as a recognized obligation. Worden v. Mitchell, 7 Wis. * 161; Waterproof P. & B. Co. v. Van Buren, 182 Wis. 640, 197 N. W. 338; Weinbergen v. Bartels, 192 Wis. 539, 213 N. W. 313; Gillitzer v. Ducharme, 203 Wis. 269, 234 N. W. 503; Kline v. Fritsch, 213 Wis. 51, 250 N. W. 837. This rule is not inconsistent with or affected by sec.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Gillitzer v. DucharmeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
  2. Waterproof Paper & Board Co. v. Van BurenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1924
  3. Kline v. FritschWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
  4. Weinbergen v. BartelsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1927

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. v. Fairbanks Morse, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1973
  2. Armes v. Kenosha CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1977
  3. Central Mutual Insurance v. H. O., Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1974
  4. Albright v. WeissingerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1941
  5. Canyon Loan Co. v. GambleCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1937

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API