Golden v. Meier

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Writing for the CourtKERWIN
Citation107 N.W. 27,129 Wis. 14
Decision Date17 April 1906
PartiesGOLDEN ET AL. v. MEIER ET AL.

129 Wis. 14
107 N.W. 27

GOLDEN ET AL.
v.
MEIER ET AL.a1

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

April 17, 1906.


Appeal from Circuit Court, Pierce County; E. W. Helms, Judge.

Action by J. J. Golden and another against August Meier and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

This action was brought to recover damages for breach of the following alleged contract: “Know all men by these presents: That we, the undersigned, whose names are hereto subscribed, all of the county of Pierce and state of Wisconsin, do hereby associate ourselves together as a co-operative association under the name of the Prescott Creamery Association, for the purpose of manufacturing our butter at actual cost. It is agreed that the place of business or creamery plant proposed to be erected shall be located at or near Prescott, Wisconsin. It is further agreed in consideration of the mutual benefits herein agreed by and between the members of said association and whose names are hereto subscribed as parties of the first part, and Golden and Tobias as parties of the second part, as follows, to wit: It is hereby agreed by and between the parties of the first part and the parties of the second part that the parties of the first part shall consist of not less than thirty-three members, whose names shall be subscribed hereto, before this agreement shall become operative and take affect upon either party. The parties of the first part agree to furnish free of charge sufficient land for a suitable location, and reasonably level, on which the creamery building shall be erected, and said first party shall also furnish free of charge on the creamery grounds aforesaid a sufficient well of good, pure water. Said ground shall be furnished said second parties on or before the 1st day of April, 1904, so as not to delay the erection of said creamery. And it is agreed that the parties of the second part shall build, equip, and complete for said parties of the first part on or before the 1st day of June, 1904, a creamery plant on said location aforesaid, as per plans and specifications and list of machinery and appliances hereto attached, for the consideration of thirty-three hundred dollars, which said sum of thirty-three hundred dollars the parties of the first part hereby covenant and agree to pay said parties of the second part, their heirs or assigns, with interest from June 1st, 1904, at 6 per cent. per annum as follows, to wit: $1,100.00 January 1st, 1905. $1,100.00 January 1st, 1906. $1,100.00 January 1st, 1907. It is further agreed that the parties of the first part shall appoint a president and secretary to act as said association's representatives in looking after the erection of said creamery plant and whose duty it shall be to accept said creamery plant for said parties of the first part, upon notice in writing to them by said second parties of the completion of said plant, and should said representatives aforesaid fail to notify said parties of the second part in writing of the acceptance by them of said creamery plant as herein mentioned within six days after the second party gives them notice of the conmpletion of said plant, the same shall stand accepted without any further act.”

The complaint sets up the contract and alleges that defendants were copartners and failed to perform on their part, and refused to permit plaintiffs to perform in consequence of which they sustained $1,225 damages. The answer specificially denies that defendants were partners, and alleges that at the time each respondent affixed his signature to the written agreement it was specially agreed that said agreement was not to become binding or effective for any purpose until the appellants had obtained from the signers of such agreement a pledge in writing to furnish for the use of the creamery when erected the milk from 250 to 350 cows, and that the appellants wholly failed to obtain such pledge, and that the respondents signed the instrument relying upon the agreement that such contract would not become effective or of any binding force until the appellants had obtained such pledge, and that it was well understood between appellants and respondents that such creamery could not be run so as to pay expenses with less than the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 practice notes
  • Gardiner v. Gardiner
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • February 23, 1923
    ...223, 18 L. R. A., N. S., 337, and note; Fred v. Fred (N. J. Ch.), 50 A. 776; Diekman v. Arnold, 71 Mich. 656, 40 N.W. 42; Golden v. Meier, 129 Wis. 14, 116 Am. St. 935, 107 N.W. 27; Bowers v. Cottrell, 15 Idaho 221, 96 P. 936; McCormick Harvester Co. v. Morlan, 121 Iowa 451, 96 N.W. 976; 3 ......
  • Hardin College v. Johnson, No. 20190.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 6, 1928
    ...7 Mo. App. 194; Shelton v. Durham, 7 Mo. App. 585; Reiner v. Crawford, 23 Wash. 669, 63 Pac. 516, 83 Am. St. Rep. 84; Golden v. Meier, 129 Wis. 14, 107 N.W. 27, 116 Am. St. Rep. 935; Ware v. Allen, 128 U.S. 590, 9 Sup. Ct. 174, 32 L. Ed. 563; Burke v. Dulaney, 153 U.S. 228, 14 Sup. Ct. 816,......
  • Foot Schulze & Co. v. Skeffington
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • February 27, 1925
    ...v. Russell, 101 Or. 672, 201 P. 433, 20 A. L. R. 417;Reiner v. Crawford, 23 Wash. 669, 63 P. 516, 83 Am. St. Rep. 848;Golden v. Meier, 129 Wis. 14, 107 N. W. 27, 116 Am. St. Rep. 935;Carpenter v. Carpenter, 141 Wis. 544, 124 N. W. 488;Beach v. Nevins, 162 F. 129, 89 C. C. A. 129, 18 L. R. A......
  • Hodge v. Smith
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • January 8, 1907
    ...Hartford, Conn., 102 Wis. 593, 78 N. W. 920;State ex rel. Jones v. Chamber of Commerce, 121 Wis. 110, 98 N. W. 930;Golden v. Meier (Wis.) 107 N. W. 27;Ware v. Smith, 62 Iowa, 159, 17 N. W. 459;Belleville Savings Bank v. Bornman, 124 Ill. 200, 16 N. E. 210;Merchants' Exchange Bank v. Luckow,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
17 cases
  • Gardiner v. Gardiner
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • February 23, 1923
    ...223, 18 L. R. A., N. S., 337, and note; Fred v. Fred (N. J. Ch.), 50 A. 776; Diekman v. Arnold, 71 Mich. 656, 40 N.W. 42; Golden v. Meier, 129 Wis. 14, 116 Am. St. 935, 107 N.W. 27; Bowers v. Cottrell, 15 Idaho 221, 96 P. 936; McCormick Harvester Co. v. Morlan, 121 Iowa 451, 96 N.W. 976; 3 ......
  • Hardin College v. Johnson, No. 20190.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 6, 1928
    ...7 Mo. App. 194; Shelton v. Durham, 7 Mo. App. 585; Reiner v. Crawford, 23 Wash. 669, 63 Pac. 516, 83 Am. St. Rep. 84; Golden v. Meier, 129 Wis. 14, 107 N.W. 27, 116 Am. St. Rep. 935; Ware v. Allen, 128 U.S. 590, 9 Sup. Ct. 174, 32 L. Ed. 563; Burke v. Dulaney, 153 U.S. 228, 14 Sup. Ct. 816,......
  • Foot Schulze & Co. v. Skeffington
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • February 27, 1925
    ...v. Russell, 101 Or. 672, 201 P. 433, 20 A. L. R. 417;Reiner v. Crawford, 23 Wash. 669, 63 P. 516, 83 Am. St. Rep. 848;Golden v. Meier, 129 Wis. 14, 107 N. W. 27, 116 Am. St. Rep. 935;Carpenter v. Carpenter, 141 Wis. 544, 124 N. W. 488;Beach v. Nevins, 162 F. 129, 89 C. C. A. 129, 18 L. R. A......
  • Hodge v. Smith
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • January 8, 1907
    ...Hartford, Conn., 102 Wis. 593, 78 N. W. 920;State ex rel. Jones v. Chamber of Commerce, 121 Wis. 110, 98 N. W. 930;Golden v. Meier (Wis.) 107 N. W. 27;Ware v. Smith, 62 Iowa, 159, 17 N. W. 459;Belleville Savings Bank v. Bornman, 124 Ill. 200, 16 N. E. 210;Merchants' Exchange Bank v. Luckow,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT