Pierce v. Stolhand

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Writing for the CourtKERWIN
Citation141 Wis. 286,124 N.W. 259
PartiesPIERCE v. STOLHAND.
Decision Date11 January 1910

141 Wis. 286
124 N.W. 259

PIERCE
v.
STOLHAND.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Jan. 11, 1910.


Appeal from Circuit Court, Milwaukee County; Warren D. Tarrant, Judge.

Action by Emma J. Pierce against Hattie G. Stolhand. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions to render judgment for plaintiff.

This action was brought to recover on a $200 note given in part payment for services to be performed for defendant by way of instructions in dermatology. Under the agreement $300 was paid in cash and a note given for the balance of the agreed price of the instructions. The answer sets up fraud by way of false representations on the part of the plaintiff. A counterclaim was also pleaded setting up fraud and want of consideration and demanding recovery of $300 paid to plaintiff at the time of execution of the note. The case was tried by the court and a jury. Only three questions were submitted to the jury: (1) Falsity of the representations; (2) reliance upon them; (3) defendant's freedom from negligence. The court refused to submit the question of damages. The jury answered the three questions submitted in favor of the defendant. Plaintiff moved for a directed verdict, for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and for a determination by the court of the issue of damages and other omitted issues, which motions were denied. Judgment was ordered for the defendant upon the verdict for $497, damages and costs; it was further ordered that plaintiff pay $10, costs of motion for judgment. Due exceptions were filed by the plaintiff. Judgment was entered, accordingly, in favor of the defendant, from which this appeal was taken.

[124 N.W. 260]

James D. Shaw, for appellant.

A. C. Umbreit, for respondent.


KERWIN, J. (after stating the facts as above).

The execution and delivery of the note being admitted, the burden was upon the defendant to prove her defense and establish the counterclaim. The note bears date January 16, 1900, and it appears that it was given for services to be performed after its execution. The evidence tends to show that prior to the execution of the note the plaintiff was engaged in business in the city of Milwaukee as a dermatologist and receiving for her services $4 per hour; that defendant applied to her to be instructed in the art, and was informed by plaintiff that a course of instructions would cost $500. The defendant, thinking the price high, made some investigation upon the subject and conferred with a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Portner v. Tanner, 1060
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • July 17, 1923
    ...Tilton v. Musgrave, 169 Ill.App. 243; Hamer v. Sidway, 27 N.E. 256, 124 N.Y. 538; Bolles v. Sachs, 33 N.W. 863; Pierce v. Stolhand, 124 N.W. 259; Marling v. Fitzgerald, 120 N.W. 388.) The promise of the defendant to pay the checks was an independent contract. (Emerson v. Slater, 22 How. 43,......
  • Childress v. Nordman, No. 532
    • United States
    • North Carolina United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • December 2, 1953
    ...61, 259 P. 858; Cloutier v. Lapane, 64 R.I. 181, 11 A.2d 620; Hentz v. Wallace's Adm'r, 153 Va. 437, 150 S.E. 389; Pierce v. Stolhand, 141 Wis. 286, 124 N.W. 259. This general ruleis based on the sound concept that inferences or presumptions of fact [238 N.C. 713] do not ordinarily run back......
  • Rupert v. Chi., M., St. P. & P. R. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • October 14, 1930
    ...materially.” Ellis v. State, 138 Wis. 513, 524, 119 N. W. 1110, 1114, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 444, 131 Am. St. Rep. 1022;Pierce v. Stolhand, 141 Wis. 286, 124 N. W. 259;Blank v. Township of Livonia, 79 Mich. 1, 44 N. W. 157;Adams v. Junger, 158 Iowa, 449, 139 N. W. 1096, 1100;Powers v. Boston &......
  • Greeley v. Greeley
    • United States
    • Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)
    • July 8, 1920
    ...suit is enforceable against the maker's estate. This conclusion is supported by authority in the field of precedents. Pierce v. Stolhand, 141 Wis. 286, 124 N. W. 259, was an action on a promissory note given in part payment of services to be performed. Defendant set up want of consideration......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Portner v. Tanner, 1060
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • July 17, 1923
    ...Tilton v. Musgrave, 169 Ill.App. 243; Hamer v. Sidway, 27 N.E. 256, 124 N.Y. 538; Bolles v. Sachs, 33 N.W. 863; Pierce v. Stolhand, 124 N.W. 259; Marling v. Fitzgerald, 120 N.W. 388.) The promise of the defendant to pay the checks was an independent contract. (Emerson v. Slater, 22 How. 43,......
  • Childress v. Nordman, No. 532
    • United States
    • North Carolina United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • December 2, 1953
    ...61, 259 P. 858; Cloutier v. Lapane, 64 R.I. 181, 11 A.2d 620; Hentz v. Wallace's Adm'r, 153 Va. 437, 150 S.E. 389; Pierce v. Stolhand, 141 Wis. 286, 124 N.W. 259. This general ruleis based on the sound concept that inferences or presumptions of fact [238 N.C. 713] do not ordinarily run back......
  • Rupert v. Chi., M., St. P. & P. R. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • October 14, 1930
    ...materially.” Ellis v. State, 138 Wis. 513, 524, 119 N. W. 1110, 1114, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 444, 131 Am. St. Rep. 1022;Pierce v. Stolhand, 141 Wis. 286, 124 N. W. 259;Blank v. Township of Livonia, 79 Mich. 1, 44 N. W. 157;Adams v. Junger, 158 Iowa, 449, 139 N. W. 1096, 1100;Powers v. Boston &......
  • Greeley v. Greeley
    • United States
    • Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)
    • July 8, 1920
    ...suit is enforceable against the maker's estate. This conclusion is supported by authority in the field of precedents. Pierce v. Stolhand, 141 Wis. 286, 124 N. W. 259, was an action on a promissory note given in part payment of services to be performed. Defendant set up want of consideration......
  • 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