Spellbrink v. Bramberg
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtBarlow, J.
To sustain the position that the bar of the statute of limitations does not apply, plaintiff's counsel argues that liability under this guaranty is broader in scope than the liability of the principal and must be construed to remain in force and effect until payment is made. It is also argued that all loans constitute but one account under the guaranty and the statute would not run until maturity of the last item. We are unable to agree with counsel’s position. While the language of the guaranty should be examined for the purpose of determining its intent and purpose, there is nothing in the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Barry v. MinahanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1906
- Taylor v. ThiemanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1907
- Fleming v. YeazelIllinois Supreme Court · 1942
- Estate of Shinoe v. ShinoeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
- Fitzpatrick v. Estate of PhelanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1883
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Holifield v. Setco Industries, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1969
- Lewis v. Paul Revere Life InsuranceDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 2000
- Umpqua Bank v. Charles A. Gunzel III and Ginelle F. GunzelCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2021
- Umpqua Bank v. Charles A. Gunzel III and Ginelle F. GunzelCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2021