Grady v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 02 February 1954 |
| Citation | 62 N.W.2d 399,265 Wis. 610 |
| Parties | GRADY, v. HARTFORD STEAM BOILER INSPECTION & INSURANCE CO. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Quarles, Spence & Quarles, Milwaukee, Kenneth Grubb and Richard S. Gibbs, Milwaukee, Franklin W. Stevenson, Hartford, Conn., of counsel, for appellant.
Rogers, Vance & Hallfrisch, Fort Atkinson, Wright Hallfrisch, Fort Atkinson, of counsel, for respondent.
Upon this appeal the defendant contends that its conduct constituted nothing more than a refusal to continue business relations with the plaintiff except upon terms acceptable to the defendant and that it had an absolute right so to do under the terms of the policy; that there were no fraudulent misrepresentations of material facts upon which the plaintiff relied, or had any right to rely, but that any statements by the defendant's agents were mere expressions of opinion, and even though said opinions were at variance with the opinions of other people that does not give rise to a cause of action; that any representations, if made, were representations of future actions, promises, or hopes, which are not actionable; that the affidavits filed in support of its motion for a directed verdict established a good cause for the opinion that the boiler was defective; that any material issues raised by the pleadings were legal rather than factual and therefore the motion of the defendant for summary judgment should have been granted; and finally, that the court's permission to plaintiff to amend his complaint was an abuse of discretion.
Many decisions of this court are cited in both briefs as to the purpose and application of the summary judgment statute. It has been held many times by this court that if there is any substantial issue of fact presented by the pleadings, the motion for summary judgment should be denied. Citations on that point are unnecessary. We agree with the trial court that the pleadings did raise issues of material fact.
Admissions made pursuant to section 327.22, Stats., are binding upon the party making them to the extent that they are complete. For example, the plaintiff admitted, pursuant to demand: 'That the fair and reasonable value of the Leffel boiler on the date the same was sold by plaintiff to Otto Biefeld Company was the sum of Three Hundred Sixty-four and 02/100 Dollars ($364.02).' That statement by itself is incomplete. It does not tell whether the boiler on that date was installed in the plant or whether it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bentzler v. Braun
...the foregoing section: " * * * gives the trial court wide discretion as to amendment of pleadings. Grady v. Hartford Steam Boiler Insp. & Ins. Co. (1954), 265 Wis. 610, 617, 62 N.W.2d 399; Kuester v. (1947), 250 Wis. 277, 282, 26 N.W.2d 639." The trial court did not in this case abuse its "......
-
Girtz v. Oman
...pleading is based.' This section gives the trial court wide discretion as to amendment of pleadings. Grady v. Hartford Steam Boiler Insp. & Ins. Co. (1954), 265 Wis. 610, 617, 62 N.W.2d 399; Kuester v. Rowlands (1947), 250 Wis. 277, 282, 26 N.W.2d The original complaint of Gertrude Girtz st......
-
Wipfli v. Martin
...590, we stated: 'This section gives the trial court wide discretion as to amendment of pleadings. Grady v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co. (1954), 265 Wis. 610, 617, 62 N.W.2d 399; Kuester v. Rowlands (1947), 250 Wis. 277, 282, 26 N.W.2d State ex rel. Schroedel v. Pagels (1950),......