Superior Consolidated Land Co. v. Bickford

67 N.W. 45, 93 Wis. 220, 1896 Wisc. LEXIS 38
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
DecidedMay 1, 1896
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 67 N.W. 45 (Superior Consolidated Land Co. v. Bickford) 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
Superior Consolidated Land Co. v. Bickford, 67 N.W. 45, 93 Wis. 220, 1896 Wisc. LEXIS 38 (Wis. 1896).

Opinion

WiNslow, J.

The offer of the defendant was in legal effect that if the Daisy Roller Mill Company would, within a reasonable time, build a flouring mill of a certain description upon Quebec pier, he would pay the company the sum of $1,000. This was a continuing offer, made to the mill company through Mr. Bardon, revocable until accepted. It appears that the mill company, relying upon this offer, and before any revocation thereof, built the required mill on the required site, within a reasonable time. These facts made a binding contract, within all the authorities upon the subject. The doctrine is well settled in this court, and the authorities are collected in Gibbons v. Grinsel, 19 Wis. 365-371, where it is said that all the authorities agree that, where “ the persons to whom the subscriptions run have expended money or incurred obligations on the faith of such subscriptions, it is sufficient consideration to support the promise to pay.” See 26 Am. Law Reg. (N. S.), 2; also, authorities collected in 24 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, *331. No formal acceptance was necessary. The expending of money and erection of the building in accordance with the offer is a sufficient acceptance, as well as a-consideration. Richelieu Hotel Co. [223]*223v. International M. E. Co. 140 Ill. 248. The assumption of a liability or obligation, or the doing of some unequivocal act, such as the expending of money or erection of a building in accordance with the proposition and upon the faith of the subscription, is a sufficient acceptance. Cottage St. M. E. Church v. Kendall, 121 Mass. 528. After such an acceptance there can be no withdrawal of the offer. The cases, of Methodist Episcopal Church v. Sherman, 36 Wis. 404, and Leonard v. Lent, 43 Wis. 83, where subscriptions to assist in paying off church debts were held not binding because never accepted by the church corporation or by any authorized agent of the corporations in ¡any way, have no bearing on this case.

By the Court.— Judgment affirmed.

Maeshall, J., took no part.

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

Related

Roberts v. Harrington
169 N.W. 603 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1918)
Evangelish Lutherish St. Martins Gemeinde v. Pruess
122 N.W. 719 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1909)
Schoenmann v. Whitt
117 N.W. 851 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1908)
Arnold v. National Bank of Waupaca
105 N.W. 828 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1905)
Hodges v. Nalty
80 N.W. 726 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1899)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
67 N.W. 45, 93 Wis. 220, 1896 Wisc. LEXIS 38, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/superior-consolidated-land-co-v-bickford-wis-1896.