Legal Opinion

Bergmann v. Roll

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided February 7, 1928PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRosenberry, J.

The contention that there is a misjoinder of causes of action is based upon the proposition that the makers, the indorser of a promissory note, and guarantor of a mortgage securing the note, cannot be joined in one action. Cottrell v. New London F. Co. 94 Wis. 176, 68 N. W. 874; Midland T. C. Co. v. Illinois S. Co. 163 Wis. 190, 157 N. W. 785. See, also, Schultz v. Wise, 93 Neb. 718, 141 N. W. 813; Wolf v. Eppenstein, 71 Oreg. 1, 140 Pac. 751; Bowen v. Clark, 25 Oreg. 592, 37 Pac. 74; Graham v. Ringo, 67 Mo. 324. This contention is met by the plaintiff with the proposition that Richard Roll,…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. United States v. RossSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
  2. Hinshaw v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1897
  3. Graham v. RingoSupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
  4. Crosby v. RoubWisconsin Supreme Court · 1863
  5. Midland Terra Cotta Co. v. Illinois-Surety Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1916

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Bishop v. GenzWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
  2. Pribus v. BushCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981
  3. United States v. KrochmalDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1970
  4. Zuehlke v. EngelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
  5. Bailey v. MillsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1952

2 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