Legal Opinion

Wiegman v. Alexander

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided May 6, 1958PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.

The parties appear to agree that the amended description accurately covers the property intended to be sold. It is clear that the triangular parcel of lot 7, deeded by Mrs. French to plaintiffs after issue was joined, is included in the amended description but was not included in the original description. The omission was an unintentional error. Defendants assert that a northwesterly part of the property intended to be sold and of the amended description lies outside Sunnyside Addition and outside the original description. They are correct if the measurements shown on the plat are taken…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Diggle v. BouldenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1880
  2. Pereles v. MagoonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1890
  3. O'Brien v. McGraneWisconsin Supreme Court · 1871
  4. Pereles v. GrossWisconsin Supreme Court · 1905
  5. Petre v. SlowinskiWisconsin Supreme Court · 1947

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. United States v. Anthony J. Peters, Appeal of Walter F. Kelly and Sandra J. Hays, Forfeiture Purchasers-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1985
  2. United States v. Anthony J. Peters, Appeal of Walter F. Kelly and Sandra J. Hays, Forfeiture Purchasers-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1985
  3. Wiegman v. AlexanderWisconsin Supreme Court · 1958

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

Powered by the Exa API