Legal Opinion

Hooper v. O. M. Corwin Co.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 4, 1929PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFowler, J.

The defendants claim that the express contract alleged is not proven, and that in such case there could be recovery only upon amendment of the complaint to allege in qumtum meruit and proof of the value of the plaintiff’s services; and that as there was no proof of such value there can be no recovery.

The fact that the “ultimatum” was prepared and submitted by plaintiff at the request of the Corwin Company and that plaintiff expended money in so doing forms a good consideration for the contract alleged, if it was in fact made. Silverthorn v. Wylie, 96 Wis. 69, 71 N. W. 107. A contract is made…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Day v. CatonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
  2. Manufacturers & Merchants Inspection Bureau v. Everwear Hosiery Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1913
  3. Hooker v. HydeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1884
  4. McLaughlin v. LagersSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1923
  5. Thompson v. ArtripSupreme Court of Virginia · 1921

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. California Wine Asso. v. Wisconsin Liquor Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
  2. Theuerkauf v. SuttonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1981
  3. Benjamin Plumbing, Inc. v. BarnesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1991
  4. Weis v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin SystemDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 2011
  5. Koski v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1939

7 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