Estate of Shinoe v. Shinoe
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtFowler, J.
The appellant’s contentions are that: (1) The alleged agreement was not proved; (2) The claimant’s possession was not such as to entitle him to the remedy of specific performance; (3) The remedy of specific performance is barred by the statute of limitation and laches; (4) The remedy of specific performance should be denied because of inequitable conduct of the claimant; (5) The trial court erred in not awarding a larger amount due the estate upon the counterclaim.(1) The only evidence tending to support the county judge’s finding that the contract was made may be summarized as follows: Mr.…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Watts v. JohnsonTexas Supreme Court · 1849
- Twiss v. GeorgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1876
- Williamson v. NeevesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
- Blanchard v. McDougalWisconsin Supreme Court · 1858
- Wright v. BrooksMontana Supreme Court · 1913
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Commerce Insurance Co. v. Merrill Gas Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1955
- Kiernan v. CreechAlaska Supreme Court · 2012
- Estate of RosenthalWisconsin Supreme Court · 1945
- Drexler v. ZohlenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
- Krause v. HolandWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.