Legal Opinion

Mahonna v. Chaimson

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided March 6, 1934PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRosenberry, C. J.

The facts in this case disclose two shrewd and rather unscrupulous dealers, each attempting to *399take advantage of the other. While an unscrupulous person is entitled to the benefit of the law, his conduct must be considered and interpreted in the light of all of the surrounding circumstances in the case. The claim of the plaintiff is that in reliance upon a verbal promise by the terms of which the defendants were to lease the building and fixtures for $120 per month for one year, the lease to contain an option that the defendants might purchase during that time, the store building for $20,000…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Kneeland v. SchmidtWisconsin Supreme Court · 1890
  2. Weinsklar Realty Co. v. DooleyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1930
  3. Jeleniewski v. EckWisconsin Supreme Court · 1921
  4. Selts Investment Co. v. Promoters of the Federated Nations of the World, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1928

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. First Wisconsin Trust Co. v. L. Wiemann Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1980
  2. Anderson v. Andy Darling Pontiac, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1950
  3. Richter v. FassettWisconsin Supreme Court · 1948
  4. Lindsley v. Farmers Exchange Investment Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1937

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

Powered by the Exa API