Legal Opinion

Hellenbrand v. Bowar

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided April 3, 1962PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHallows, J.

The appellants raise three questions: (1) Was the notice requirement of sec. 121.49, Stats., satisfied, (2) does the evidence sustain the verdict that there was an express warranty by each of the defendants, and (3) is the verdict sustained on the basis of an implied warranty of fitness ?

On the motions after verdict for the first time, the question was raised by the defendants that the plaintiffs had not pleaded or proven notice of breach of warranty. This assignment of error goes to the basis of the judgment, against *268Bowar which, in turn, is necessary to sustain the judgments against the…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Dillard v. McKnightCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
  2. Marsh Wood Products Co. v. Babcock & Wilcox Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Swak v. Department of Labor & IndustriesWashington Supreme Court · 1952
  4. James v. UNKNOWN TRUSTEES, ETC.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1950
  5. Morn v. SchalkWisconsin Supreme Court · 1961

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. LA Green Seed Company of Arkansas v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1969
  2. Promaulayko v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1989
  3. Paulson v. Olson Implement Co., Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Hellenbrand v. BowarWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
  5. LA Green Seed Company of Arkansas v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1969

3 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