Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Conway

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided February 2, 1965Published

1DissentBeilfuss, J.

I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion which holds that the present action is transitory. The reasoning that this is an *418action on contract, rather than one “for the recovery of real property, or of an estate or interest therein, or for the determination in any form of such estate or interest,” ignores the nature of the relief sought by plaintiff.

An action on an option contract such as the instant one could generate three types of prayers for relief. One could be for damages only — clearly transitory. Another could be for the recovery or possession of the land —…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Burrall v. EamesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1856
  2. Nassau Hotel Co. v. BarnettAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1914
  3. Hackett v. CarterWisconsin Supreme Court · 1875
  4. Birmingham v. SquiresAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1910
  5. Rothenberg v. FieldsNew York Supreme Court · 1953

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