Briggs v. Miller
| Decision Date | 10 January 1922 |
| Citation | 186 N.W. 163,176 Wis. 321 |
| Parties | BRIGGS v. MILLER. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Milwaukee County; G. G. Gehrz, Judge.
Action by J. W. Briggs against Orlando Edgar Miller. From an order overruling demurrer to the complaint, defendant appeals. Order reversed and cause remanded, with directions to sustain demurrer.
Demurrer. The complaint set forth at considerable length that the defendant was a public lecturer upon applied psychology; that in order to create in the minds of the public the impression that he was absolutely honest, fair, and sincere in his teaching of the subject, and as a means of furthering the defendant's standing and reputation as a public speaker, and as a means of inducing the public to have confidence in him, “the defendant caused to be published to the world an offer that, in the event that any one whosoever should have at any time lost any money in any of defendant's business ventures, and who would come forward and show to the defendant such fact, he (the defendant) would immediately pay to such person the full loss so sustained.” It was then alleged that the defendant started a certain business venture, and that the plaintiff received the promissory note of the defendant's company for $1,200 for certain assets sold by the plaintiff to the defendant's company, which note was indorsed by the defendant personally; that said note was given on or about July 30, 1895, and was for $1,200, and was payable July 30, 1896; that no part of the interest or principal had been paid, and “that the principal of said note and interest thereon is a loss to the plaintiff directly flowing from one of the defendant's business ventures; that said business venture was the O. E. Miller Hernia Treatment Company, and the defendant was president thereof; that, shortly after the publication of the defendant's offer to the world as above alleged, the plaintiff became advised thereof, and did cause the defendant to be presented with a statement of the fact that the plaintiff had lost the above money through a business venture of the defendant, and that said money and no part thereof had ever been paid to the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff's attention had been called to the general offer of the defendant above alleged, and that the plaintiff was then and there accepting the offer of the defendant in producing to him the facts regarding his loss growing out of the defendant's said business venture; that said plaintiff did then and there produce the facts regarding said loss to the defendant and the defendant did then and there admit the correctness of the same;” that the plaintiff demanded that the defendant comply with his offer, which the defendant refused to do. Judgment was demanded for the sum of $1,200, together with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent. from the time of the loss, with costs and disbursements.
The defendant demurred to the complaint, first, on the ground that it appears upon the face thereof that the same does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; second, on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction of the subject of the action: third, on the ground that the action was not commenced within the time limited by section 4222 of the Statutes of Wisconsin for the year 1919.
From an order overruling the demurrer, the defendant appeals.Lenicheck, Boesel & Wickhem, of Milwaukee, for appellant.
Arthur H. Bartelt and Otjen & Otjen, all of Milwaukee, for respondent.
ROSENBERRY, J. (after stating the facts as above).
[1][2][3] The court clearly had jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action, and, as plaintiff relies upon a new contract, and not upon the original note or indorsement,it not appearing when the new contract was made, the order overruling the demurrer upon the second and third grounds assigned needs no further discussion. It is the contention of appellant that the complaint states no cause of action for two reasons: First, no consideration is shown; second, the offer was to a limited class of persons--that is, to those who “should have at any time lost any money in any of defendant's business ventures”--and the plaintiff has not shown himself to be one of that class.
On the part of the plaintiff it is claimed that the complaint sets forth a unilateral contract which came into existence by reason of the performance of an act by the defendant, to wit, by the defendant bringing to the plaintiff's attention the fact of the indebtedness set out in the complaint, and that the performance of that act constituted an acceptance. If it be assumed that the offer was one made with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marks v. Hous. Cas. Co.
...may arise, three things must concur: first, the offer; second, the acceptance; and, third, the consideration.” Briggs v. Miller, 176 Wis. 321, 325, 186 N.W. 163 (1922). “Where an illusory promise is made, that is, a promise merely in form, but in actuality not promising anything, it cannot ......
-
Kocinski v. Home Ins. Co.
...Jr., The Common Law & Other Writings at 253 (Special ed. 1982).13 Id. at 305.14 Id. at 306.15 Id. at 306-07.16 Briggs v. Miller, 176 Wis. 321, 325, 186 N.W. 163, 164 (1922); see also State v. Howell, 141 Wis.2d 58, 61, 414 N.W.2d 54, 56 (Ct.App.1987).17 Mullen v. Coolong, 132 Wis.2d 440, 45......
-
Piaskoski & Associates v. Ricciardi
...707, 711, 476 N.W.2d 311 (Ct. App. 1991). I. ¶ 7. A valid contract requires an offer, acceptance and consideration. Briggs v. Miller, 176 Wis. 321, 325, 186 N.W.2d 163 (1922). Offer and acceptance exist when the parties mutually express assent, and consideration exists if the parties manife......
-
Jimenez v. GLK Foods LLC, Case No. 12-CV-209
...an offer, acceptance and consideration. (Defs.' Br. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. at 25, ECF No. 110) (citing Briggs v. Miller, 176 Wis. 321, 325, 186 N.W.2d 163 (1922)). Because the H-2B applications were submitted to the DOL and not the workers, and because the workers acknowledge that ne......