Dunham v. Fisher

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Dunham v. Fisher

211 N.W. 757, 191 Wis. 624, 1927 Wisc. LEXIS 95

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 11, 1927

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 211 N.W. 757 (Dunham v. Fisher) 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.

Bluebook

Dunham v. Fisher, 211 N.W. 757, 191 Wis. 624, 1927 Wisc. LEXIS 95 (Wis. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Vinje, C. J.

Plaintiffs assign as error the finding of the court that the evidence did not establish a valid contract between the parties. They claim the letter of August 14, 1923, signed by the defendant, constitutes a complete contract. It appears that prior to the writing of the letter of August 14th some conversations relative to the sale of the lots were had, but their substance was properly excluded as not competent under sec. 240.08, Stats. 1925, so we must look to the correspondence alone as to whether a valid contract for the conveyance of the lots was made. The court properly considered the letter and inclosed deed as expressing the terms of the conveyance, and it clearly appears that plaintiffs were not willing to accept those terms. They wanted an absolute right to the spring and this the defendant refused to give, so their minds never met as to the essential terms of the sale — hence no complete contract is shown.

The offer contained in the defendant’s letter of August 31st was withdrawn before it was acted upon or any con[628]*628sideration paid. Defendant’s right to withdraw under such circumstances is unquestioned. 27 Ruling Case Law, 325, 329; 39 Cyc. 1195; Johnson v. Filkington, 39 Wis. 62; Helmholz v. Greene, 173 Wis. 306, 181 N. W. 221.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Vinje, C. J.

Plaintiffs assign as error the finding of the court that the evidence did not establish a valid contract between the parties. They claim the letter of August 14, 1923, signed by the defendant, constitutes a complete contract. It appears that prior to the writing of the letter of August 14th some conversations relative to the sale of the lots were had, but their substance was properly excluded as not competent under sec. 240.08, Stats. 1925, so we must look to the correspondence alone as to whether a valid contract for the conveyance of the lots was made. The court properly considered the letter and inclosed deed as expressing the terms of the conveyance, and it clearly appears that plaintiffs were not willing to accept those terms. They wanted an absolute right to the spring and this the defendant refused to give, so their minds never met as to the essential terms of the sale — hence no complete contract is shown.

The offer contained in the defendant’s letter of August 31st was withdrawn before it was acted upon or any con[628]*628sideration paid. Defendant’s right to withdraw under such circumstances is unquestioned. 27 Ruling Case Law, 325, 329; 39 Cyc. 1195; Johnson v. Filkington, 39 Wis. 62; Helmholz v. Greene, 173 Wis. 306, 181 N. W. 221.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 N.W. 757, 191 Wis. 624, 1927 Wisc. LEXIS 95, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunham-v-fisher-wis-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack