City of Kiel v. Frank Shoe Manufacturing Co.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.
When the parties to this appeal were here on demurrer to the complaint, Kiel v. Frank Shoe Mfg. Co. 240 Wis. 594, 597, 4 N. W. (2d) 117, we decided that the ar rangement attempted to be made on behalf of the city of Kiel with the appellants was beyond the power of the city “and for that reason illegal and void, therefore not- in any legal sense a contract,” citing Wendlandt v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. 222 Wis. 204, 268 N. W. 230. And because the complaint alleged that the individual appellants had knowingly and fraudulently procured the payment of the money, it was, then ruled that a…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Chippewa Bridge Co. v. City of DurandWisconsin Supreme Court · 1904
- Frederick v. Douglas CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
- Martens v. ReillyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
- National Fireproofing Co. v. Mason Builders' Ass'nCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1909
- Shulse v. City of MayvilleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1937
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Harding v. Ohio Casualty InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1950
- Norma C. Guillot, Bobbie Lynn Guillot and Norman Andras v. Cenac Towing Company, Inc., as Owner of the Barge Murray MacCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1966
- Hecker v. Ravenna BankNebraska Supreme Court · 1991
- Benjamin Plumbing, Inc. v. BarnesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1991
- The Gamewell Company, a Corporation v. The City of Phoenix, a Municipal CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1955
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.