Legal Opinion

Weinbergen v. Bartels

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided April 5, 1927PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDoerfler, J.

The foregoing facts in substance were incorporated in the court’s findings, and are supported by the great weight of the credible evidence in the case.

Whether Roy or others were financially responsible or not, under the contract dated November 28th the plaintiffs had agreed to accept his or their note, and not the note of McConnell & Wilson or of any other person or persons. The plaintiffs, therefore, came prepared and had a bona fide intention to carry out the contract in accordance with its terms, and it was the defendant Bartels who appeared upon the scene and attempted to substitute the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Parsons v. DickinsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1871
  2. Belch v. RobertsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1915
  3. Waterproof Paper & Board Co. v. Van BurenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1924
  4. Farmers & Merchants State Bank v. H. E. Behrens Manufacturing Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1924
  5. Engle v. ShepherdSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1924

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Bowe v. La BuyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
  2. Schneider v. AndersonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1938

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

Powered by the Exa API