Legal Opinion

Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Werner

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided April 7, 1931PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWickhem, J.

Appellant’s first contention is that the tax clause in the deed is plain and unambiguous, and that -the court erred in admitting parol evidence of the agreement between the parties to prorate the taxes. It is of course elementary that a prior or contemporaneous oral agreement cannot be admitted to contradict or vary the terms of a written instrument. It is equally well established that where a term of the contract is ambiguous, it is proper to receive evidence to ascertain the sense in which the parties intended to use the term. There has never been any question in this state as to the right…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Klueter v. Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1910
  2. Ganson v. MadiganWisconsin Supreme Court · 1862
  3. Lyman v. BabcockWisconsin Supreme Court · 1876
  4. Johnson v. PughWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
  5. Hammond v. Capital City Mutual Fire InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1912

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Conrad Milwaukee Corp. v. WasilewskiWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
  2. Wheelwright v. Pure Milk Ass'nWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Kleih v. Van SchoyckWisconsin Supreme Court · 1947
  4. Milwaukee County v. Badger Chair & Furniture Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1936
  5. Production Credit Ass'n of Green Bay v. RosnerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1977

5 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