Divan v. Loomis
This text of 31 N.W. 760 (Divan v. Loomis) 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
It is said that the complaint is insufficient because it fails to aver any request of Loomis to comply [152]*152with the terms of the alleged agreement. An allegation of refusal implies a previous demand, and is equivalent to an allegation of a demand and a refusal. Hammond v. Mason & H. O. Co. 92 U. S. 724; Bogie v. Bogie, 41 Wis. 220. This being so, the breach is sufficiently alleged. Such agreement to furnish Smith a home, and to take care of and assist him to live in a comfortable manner, was personal upon the part of Loomis, and could not be shifted onto Trickle, against the will and-consent of Smith.
By the Court.— The order of the circuit court is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
31 N.W. 760, 68 Wis. 150, 1887 Wisc. LEXIS 77, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/divan-v-loomis-wis-1887.