McGillivray v. Cremer

Wisconsin Supreme Court

McGillivray v. Cremer

103 N.W. 250, 125 Wis. 74, 1905 Wisc. LEXIS 140

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedMay 2, 1905

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 103 N.W. 250 (McGillivray v. Cremer) 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

McGillivray v. Cremer, 103 N.W. 250, 125 Wis. 74, 1905 Wisc. LEXIS 140 (Wis. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Dodge, J.

The finding of fact that no contract was made, being unexcepted to, is conclusive against the right of action here presented. Our authority to review findings of fact is limited to those duly excepted to. Sec. 3070, Stats. 1898. The various circumstances, such as conversations with Husch-ka and correspondence between appellant and respondent, the evidence as to knowledge or ignorance of plaintiff’s purpose to claim a lien, as also of the situation of the parties, are all merely 'evidentiary, bearing upon the conclusion of fact ■as to whether the minds of the parties met upon a promise by Cremer to pay this balance; hence are wholly immaterial to any question which can arise here in the absence of exception to that finding.

Error is assigned because the court sustained objection to •an offer to prove that plaintiff had given instructions to his agent to perfect a lien. This was entirely res inter alios ■acta, and,, in the absence of its being brought to the knowl-. edge of the defendant Oremer, could have no possible relevancy to the issuable fact whether he did or did not make a promise to pay.

In this aspect, of course,’ the discussion as to the application of the statute of frauds to this, a pi’omise to pay the debt of another, or as to estoppel of defendant to invoke that statute, needs no consideration.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.

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

Dodge, J.

The finding of fact that no contract was made, being unexcepted to, is conclusive against the right of action here presented. Our authority to review findings of fact is limited to those duly excepted to. Sec. 3070, Stats. 1898. The various circumstances, such as conversations with Husch-ka and correspondence between appellant and respondent, the evidence as to knowledge or ignorance of plaintiff’s purpose to claim a lien, as also of the situation of the parties, are all merely 'evidentiary, bearing upon the conclusion of fact ■as to whether the minds of the parties met upon a promise by Cremer to pay this balance; hence are wholly immaterial to any question which can arise here in the absence of exception to that finding.

Error is assigned because the court sustained objection to •an offer to prove that plaintiff had given instructions to his agent to perfect a lien. This was entirely res inter alios ■acta, and,, in the absence of its being brought to the knowl-. edge of the defendant Oremer, could have no possible relevancy to the issuable fact whether he did or did not make a promise to pay.

In this aspect, of course,’ the discussion as to the application of the statute of frauds to this, a pi’omise to pay the debt of another, or as to estoppel of defendant to invoke that statute, needs no consideration.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 N.W. 250, 125 Wis. 74, 1905 Wisc. LEXIS 140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgillivray-v-cremer-wis-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack