Ullman v. Freye
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1DissentCurriE, J.
If we interpret the majority opinion correctly, it holds that a notice given for the purpose of complying with sec. 330.19 (5), Stats., is sufficient, even though one of the essential requirements prescribed by the statute to be contained therein is omitted, if (1) the person to whom the notice is given has it within his power to readily ascertain the information omitted, or already possesses such information prior to the service of the notice; (2) such omission is due to inadvertence with no intent to mislead; and (3) the person to whom the notice is given is not actually misled thereby.
Sec.…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Pietsch v. MilbrathWisconsin Supreme Court · 1905
- Herrick v. MorrillSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1887
- Hamilton v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
- Maricopa County v. OsbornArizona Supreme Court · 1943
- Voss v. TittelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1935
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.