Beers v. Atlas Assur. Co.
| Decision Date | 05 November 1935 |
| Citation | 219 Wis. 472,263 N.W. 81 |
| Parties | BEERS v. ATLAS ASSUR. CO., LIMITED, ET AL. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Walworth County; E. B. Belden, Circuit Judge presiding.
Affirmed.
This action was begun on February 20, 1933, by the plaintiff, Clarence P. Beers, against the Atlas Assurance Company, Limited, et al., to recover damages on the ground that the plaintiff had been fraudulently induced to enter into a written contract which the defendants had no intention of performing. The case was here upon a former demurrer and is reported in Beers v. Atlas Assurance Co., 215 Wis. 165, 253 N. W. 584. Upon the remittitur of the record to the circuit court, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which as to all material and essential facts was identical with the first, except that the allegations of conspiracy to defraud were amplified. There was a demurrer to this complaint, and from the order entered on January 12, 1935, overruling the demurrer, the defendants appeal. For a statement of the pleadings and the issues reference is made to the opinion of the court on the first appeal.
Wolfe & Hart and Bender, Trump & McIntyre, all of Milwaukee, for appellants.
William G. Wheeler, of Janesville, for respondent.
The court held upon the first appeal that the complaint did not state a cause of action for fraud but that a cause of action for breach of contract could be spelled out of the complaint. Without in any way disaffirming the contract, the plaintiff, by his amended complaint, again seeks to recover damages for the alleged fraud. So considered the case is ruled by the decision on the former appeal and for the reasons there stated. All the allegations, however much characterization may accompany them, come down merely to the proposition that the plaintiff was induced to enter into a contract which was fraudulent because the defendants, at the time the contract was made, did not intend to perform it. That was the identical question dealt with on the former appeal, and for the reason therein stated we adhere to the prior decision. Despite the fact that neither the trial court nor the plaintiff concurs in the views of this court, the former decision is the law of this case.
The order appealed from is affirmed, and cause remanded for further proceedings according to law.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Desautel v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau
... ... Corp., 354 Mo. 711, 190 S.W.2d 915, 161 A.L.R. 1454; ... Employers' Liability Assur". Corp. v. Industrial Acc ... Comm., 37 Cal.App.2d 567, 99 P.2d 1089 ... [28 N.W.2d 382] ... \xC2" ... 1267 et ... seq.; 21 C.J.S., Courts, § 195, pp. 338, 339; Beers v. Atlas ... Assur. Co., 219 Wis. 472, 263 N.W. 81; State ex rel. Littig ... v. Superior Court of ... ...
-
Beers v. Atlas Assur. Co.
...asserting conspiracy and fraud were amplified. Upon that appeal, this court adhered to its prior decision, supra. Beers v. Atlas Assurance Co., 219 Wis. 472, 263 N.W. 81. Upon the remittitur of that record, the defendants moved the trial court to strike from the second amended complaint all......