Marshall v. Wittig
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.
There can be no doubt but that the appellant entered into the contract set forth in the statement of facts. That this agreement was plain and free from ambiguity is certain. That the appellant became a stockholder in the company when he paid his $700 and gave his note for the balance of the purchase price is equally certain. By subscribing for stock he took upon himself the obligation to pay for it, and because of that liability he is now bound to pay the balance due on his stock subscription as evidenced by the note sued upon.
Appellant complains because he was not permitted to offer evidence…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Wight v. RindshopfWisconsin Supreme Court · 1877
- Hughes v. ThomasWisconsin Supreme Court · 1907
- Rock v. EkernWisconsin Supreme Court · 1916
- Lowe v. CrockerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1913
- McLean v. McLeanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1924
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Simenstad v. HagenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
- City of Santa Fe v. First Nat. Bank in RatonNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1937
- Tees v. LeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1940
- Baierl v. McTaggartCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2000
- Rietbrock v. StuddsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1952
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.