Legal Opinion · Dissent

Estate of Hatten v. Monsted

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided October 10, 1939Published

1DissentFowler, J.

To the rulings of the court that the findings of the trial court that Mr. Hatten signed the note in suit, that he was mentally competent at the time he signed it, and that there is no evidence that his signature was procured by undue influence exercised by the claimant, must be sustained, I agree. These findings cannot be said to be against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence and therefore must be sustained on appeal. But I cannot go' any further with the court than this.

The three findings of the trial court above referred to being sustained it follows that Mr. Hatten…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Park Falls State Bank v. FordyceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
  2. Odell v. SmithWisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
  3. Elbinger v. Capitol & Teutonia Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
  4. Sheldon v. BlackmanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1925
  5. Estate of McAskill v. McLeodWisconsin Supreme Court · 1934

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

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

Powered by the Exa API