Legal Opinion

Kaestner v. Kuechle

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided November 8, 1927PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDoekfler, J.

At the very threshold of this case lies the issue whether the plaintiff is bound by his election of a remedy in such a manner as to estop him from pursuing the statutory action provided for by sub. (3), sec. 180.06, Stats. Defendants argue that the plaintiff is so estopped, and rely upon the following authorities, to wit: Clausen v. Head, 110 Wis. 405, 85 N. W. 1028; Blum Bros. Box Co. v. Stumbaugh, 189 Wis. 254, 207 N. W. 270; Smeesters v. Schroeder, 123 Wis. 116, 101 N. W. 363.

Sub. (3), sec. 180.06, provides as follo'ws:

“No such corporation shall transact business with any others than its…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Clausen v. HeadWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
  2. Smeesters v. SchroederWisconsin Supreme Court · 1904
  3. Wechselberg v. Flour City Nat. BankCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1894
  4. Hanson v. MartinWisconsin Supreme Court · 1927
  5. Blum Bros. Box Co. v. StumbaughWisconsin Supreme Court · 1926

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Stadler v. RohmWisconsin Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Bank of Verona v. StewartWisconsin Supreme Court · 1937

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

Powered by the Exa API