Legal Opinion

Schuster v. Bridgeman

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided October 12, 1937PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.

In this instance a community of neighboring farmers who exchanged work were engaged in filling a silo on the farm of one 'of their number. The plaintiff had furnished a team and was drawing corn from the field and unloading the bundles onto the silo filler. The defendant owned the silo filler, had set it up, was operating it, and also attending to the tractor which produced the power for running the filler. In his testimony the defendant used the phrase “custom filled” with relation to his work, but he explained that he meant he filled silos for those farmers with whom he changed work. Fie…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Lines v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1911
  2. Vandervort v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
  3. Olsen v. BrownWisconsin Supreme Court · 1925
  4. Parmentier v. McGinnisWisconsin Supreme Court · 1914
  5. Powell v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1927

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Willenkamp v. Keeshin Transport System, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
  2. Mossak v. PfostWisconsin Supreme Court · 1950
  3. Wagner v. PeifferWisconsin Supreme Court · 1951
  4. Swonger v. CelentanoWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
  5. Redman v. HobartWisconsin Supreme Court · 1946

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