Rusch v. Wald
| Decision Date | 11 November 1930 |
| Citation | 232 N.W. 875,202 Wis. 462 |
| Parties | RUSCH v. WALD. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County; Charles L. Aarons, Circuit Judge.
Action by Elizabeth Rusch against Alex Wald. From an order overruling a demurrer to plaintiff's amended complaint, defendant appealed.--[By Editorial Staff.]
Affirmed, and cause remanded.
Action begun December 10, 1929; order overruling demurrer filed April 1, 1930.
The appeal is from an order overruling the demurrer of the defendant to the plaintiff's amended complaint. The complaint alleges that the defendant had for sale a parcel of unincumbered real estate in the vicinity of a cemetery at Hawley and Blue Mound roads in Milwaukee county, Wis. That defendant's agent, a broker licensed by the Wisconsin real estate brokers' board to sell real estate, offered the lot for sale to plaintiff and represented there were no restrictions whatsoever to prevent its being used for the purposes of manufacturing and selling monuments; that plaintiff, relying upon the representations so made, purchased the lot; that the representations were false and fraudulent, known to defendant to be so, and to his agent, and were deliberately made to induce the plaintiff to purchase the property; that plaintiff was without business experience and without knowledge or experience respecting real estate transactions, zoning ordinances, and the boundaries thereof; that the defendant knew of this lack of experience; that plaintiff relied upon the skill, integrity, and experience of the defendant in this respect and that of his agent, and that, after plaintiff became the owner of the property, she sought to erect a building for the purposes for which she desired it, but was refused a permit because there were zoning and building restrictions prohibiting and preventing the erection of a building for a monument and stone cutting works on the property described.
Being thus unable to erect her building she offered to reconvey the property to the defendant and demanded a return of the money she had paid. The defendant interposed a general demurrer, which was overruled by the court.Paul, Ebert, Paul & Knoeller of Milwaukee, for appellant.
Michael J. Dunn, Jr., of Milwaukee, for respondent.
[1][2] The appellant in support of his demurrer urges the misrepresentation complained of to be one of law as it relates to an ordinance and therefore not the basis of an action. This general...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Green Spring Farms v. Kersten
...inform buyers of the seller's negligence, and in Auric, the attorney failed to follow the proper attestation procedures. Rusch v. Wald, 202 Wis. 462, 232 N.W. 875 (1930), on the other hand, involved a commission on the part of the attorney. In that case, an attorney fraudulently deceived th......
-
Krzysko v. Gaudynski
...are now licensed, and their license is in a sense an invitation to the public to repose trust and confidence in them. Rusch v. Wald, 202 Wis. 462, 232 N. W. 875. Their relation to their principals is similar to that of one admitted to practice law to his client. An attorney who in examining......
-
Hall v. Risley
...Milwaukee Odd Fellows Temple, supra, where it was held that zoning ordinances are not encumbrances, the court distinguished Rusch v. Wald, 202 Wis. 462, 232 N.W. 875, upon ground that in the latter case it was 'expressly represented to the intending purchaser, with design to deceive him, th......
-
Bank of Loretto v. Bobo, 8 Div. 31
...227 Mich. 508, 198 N.W. 905; Tolley v. Poteet, 62 W.Va. 231, 57 S.E. 811; Altgelt v. Gerbic, Tex.Civ.App., 149 S.W. 233; Rusch v. Wald, 202 Wis. 462, 232 N.W. 875; Sainsbury v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., 4 Cir., 183 F.2d 548, In the Sainsbury case, immediately supra, Judge Dobie se......