Charles v. Umentum
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtMartin, J.
Some attempt was made by the defendants to make it appear that plaintiff was retained by Blahnik and was to be paid by him. However, the court’s finding of fact that the defendants hired plaintiff is amply supported by the evidence. There is likewise adequate support for the finding that the rate agreed upon between the parties was $4.50 per foot drilled.
We do not agree with Finding 6 of the trial court that the plaintiff cannot recover for the first hole because it was of no value to defendants. It does not follow from the fact that the first hole did not produce sufficient water to meet the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Butler v. DavisWisconsin Supreme Court · 1903
- Borg v. DowningWisconsin Supreme Court · 1936
3Cited by3 opinions
- O'HAIRE v. BretonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1960
- Atlas Const. Co., Inc. v. Aqua Drilling Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1977
- Premco Drilling, Inc. v. Maillet Bros. Builders, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1965