Campbell v. Warden
This text of 45 Wis. 338 (Campbell v. Warden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The only substantial ground urged for the appellants to reverse the judgment in this case, is that the respondent undertook to charge the principal of the appellants, in some few instances, more than the contract rate; and that this worked a change in the contract which discharged the appellants from their liability as sureties.
The contract fixed the rate, and the quantity was matter of fact. Under the contract, no formal account need have been kept. And it was immaterial to the contract between the principals, and immaterial to the sureties, whether the respondent’s account was justly and accurately kept or not. If he made overcharges, he certainly did wrong. But he only undertook to increase his demand, not to change the ground of his demand. And his overcharges did not affect the liability of the principal of the appellants, or vary the contract. They were matters dehors the contract, and without influence in any way upon it.
The referee did not find that the respondent had broken his. contract by the overcharges. If he had so found, this court would have overruled the finding.
By the Gourt. — The judgment of the court below is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
45 Wis. 338, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/campbell-v-warden-wis-1878.