Hadfield v. Skelton

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Hadfield v. Skelton

34 N.W. 397, 69 Wis. 460, 1887 Wisc. LEXIS 213

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 11, 1887

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 34 N.W. 397 (Hadfield v. Skelton) 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

Hadfield v. Skelton, 34 N.W. 397, 69 Wis. 460, 1887 Wisc. LEXIS 213 (Wis. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Cassodav, J.

In the view we have taken of this case, we have assumed that, if Mr. Sweet, or the husband of the defendant Helen M. Skelton, had authority from her to make the agreement with the plaintiff, which they purported to make, as above stated, or if she subsequently ratified that agreement, then the plaintiff in this case is entitled to judgment for the specific performance of such contract. The question, therefore, is purely one of fact. We have all carefully examined the evidence. The testimony certainly subjects Mrs. Skelton to the suspicion of having backed out of an agreement which for a time she intended [464]*464to execute, in order that sbe might sell to Mrs. Bartlett at an advance of $500. This is based in part upon the natural supposition that a husband, situated as Mr. Skelton was, would naturally, under such circumstances, keep his wife fully advised as to any and all negotiations, offers, and agreements respecting the sale of' her property. Such circumstances are undoubtedly entitled to consideration. But to entitle the plaintiff to specific performance in this case, he was bound to prove the existence of authority from Mrs. Shelton to make the contract, or her subsequent ratification of it, by clear, competent, direct, and satisfactory evidence. Hazelton v. Putnam, 3 Pin. 107, 121; 54 Am. Dec. 159; Knoll v. Harvey, 19 Wis. 99; Tiernan v. Gibney, 24 Wis. 190. The same rule obtains in other states, and in fact is universal. Rankin v. Simpson, 19 Pa. St. 471; 57 Am. Dec. 668; McCue v. Johnston, 25 Pa. St. 308; Hudson v. Layton, 5 Har. 74; 48 Am. Dec. 167; Aday v. Echols, 18 Ala. 353; 52 Am. Dec. 225. We are unable to find such evidence in the record. Certainly, there is not such a clear preponderance of such evidence as would justify us in overturning the findings of the learned trial judge, who was in a much better position to correctly determine the facts than we are.

By the Court.— The judgment of the county court is affirmed.

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

Cassodav, J.

In the view we have taken of this case, we have assumed that, if Mr. Sweet, or the husband of the defendant Helen M. Skelton, had authority from her to make the agreement with the plaintiff, which they purported to make, as above stated, or if she subsequently ratified that agreement, then the plaintiff in this case is entitled to judgment for the specific performance of such contract. The question, therefore, is purely one of fact. We have all carefully examined the evidence. The testimony certainly subjects Mrs. Skelton to the suspicion of having backed out of an agreement which for a time she intended [464]*464to execute, in order that sbe might sell to Mrs. Bartlett at an advance of $500. This is based in part upon the natural supposition that a husband, situated as Mr. Skelton was, would naturally, under such circumstances, keep his wife fully advised as to any and all negotiations, offers, and agreements respecting the sale of' her property. Such circumstances are undoubtedly entitled to consideration. But to entitle the plaintiff to specific performance in this case, he was bound to prove the existence of authority from Mrs. Shelton to make the contract, or her subsequent ratification of it, by clear, competent, direct, and satisfactory evidence. Hazelton v. Putnam, 3 Pin. 107, 121; 54 Am. Dec. 159; Knoll v. Harvey, 19 Wis. 99; Tiernan v. Gibney, 24 Wis. 190. The same rule obtains in other states, and in fact is universal. Rankin v. Simpson, 19 Pa. St. 471; 57 Am. Dec. 668; McCue v. Johnston, 25 Pa. St. 308; Hudson v. Layton, 5 Har. 74; 48 Am. Dec. 167; Aday v. Echols, 18 Ala. 353; 52 Am. Dec. 225. We are unable to find such evidence in the record. Certainly, there is not such a clear preponderance of such evidence as would justify us in overturning the findings of the learned trial judge, who was in a much better position to correctly determine the facts than we are.

By the Court.— The judgment of the county court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 N.W. 397, 69 Wis. 460, 1887 Wisc. LEXIS 213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hadfield-v-skelton-wis-1887.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack