Legal Opinion

Krueger v. Groth

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 21, 1926PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEschweileR, J.

The defendant husband asserted, as against plaintiff’s demand for specific performance of the alleged oral agreement for interchange of their respective farms, that there was no completed agreement; that there was no writing or memoranda thereof in accordance with sec. 240.08 (formerly sec. 2304), Stats.; that the real estate was the homestead and not conveyed by the husband and wife in accordance wfith sec. 235.01 (formerly sec. 2203) ; the defendant wife asserted the same grounds and also that she had an inchoate dower interest which has never been barred pursuant to sec. 235.27 (formerly…

2Cases cited44 opinions

  1. Wait v. PierceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1926
  2. Jarvais v. MoeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1875
  3. Phelps v. RooneyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1859
  4. Ferguson v. MasonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1884
  5. Cumps v. KiyoWisconsin Supreme Court · 1899

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Dill v. WidmanIllinois Supreme Court · 1952
  2. Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. SchuerbrockWisconsin Supreme Court · 1928
  3. Home Owners' Loan Corp. v. PaparaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1942
  4. Jefferson v. TomCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
  5. Hainz v. KurthWisconsin Supreme Court · 1938

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