Legal Opinion

Haentze v. Loehr

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided January 16, 1940PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRosenberry, C. J.

The plaintiffs are husband and wife and respectively sixty-five and sixty-four years of age. Ernest Haentze has been engaged in the florist business, his duties being mainly those of a laborer. He worked from nine to fourteen hours a day, and never was engaged in the loan business nor bought any securities for himself. The defendant had been engaged in the insurance and real-estate business for twenty-five years, succeeding to a business established by her father. Georgene Duffle, her agent, had worked for the defendant over seventeen years. Both knew and understood the real-estate business,…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. First National Bank of Tigerton v. HackettWisconsin Supreme Court · 1914
  2. Stephens v. WheelerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1927
  3. Heal v. StollWisconsin Supreme Court · 1922
  4. De Swarte v. First National BankWisconsin Supreme Court · 1926
  5. Sievers v. FullerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1923

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Kohler v. Kohler Co.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1962
  2. Benz v. ZobelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1949
  3. Marine National Exchange Bank v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1944

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

Powered by the Exa API