Weber v. Kole
| Decision Date | 07 April 1959 |
| Citation | 7 Wis.2d 107,95 N.W.2d 784 |
| Parties | John C. WEBER, Appellant, v. Lessing L. KOLE, Respondent. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Additional facts are stated in the opinion.
Elliot N. Walstead, Milwaukee, for appellant.
Rix, Kuelthau & Kuelthau, Milwaukee, Alexander Cannon, Gordon P. Ralph, Milwaukee, of counsel, for respondent.
It is elementary that findings of fact by trial courts may not be disturbed on appeal unless the findings are contrary to the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence. This principle has been stated in almost every volume of Wisconsin Reports. See Callahan's Wisconsin Digest, Vol. 1, Appeal and Error, sec. 870. If, then, finding Seventh may be sustained, that the defendant's farm was sold by Krier, the broker's contract between Kole and Weber is void by its express terms.
Weber does not assert that he produced the purchaser, Roetz, or knew him or even knew about him. Furthermore, Kole's lawyer called up Weber on the date when the sale to Roetz was ready for closing and Weber at that time said that he had no prospective purchaser of his own in view.
On the other hand, Roetz did not learn of this farm through any advertisement or activity instituted by Weber.
The evidence shows that Kole issued some circulars concerning the property and his desire to sell it. This circular referred interested persons to Weber, Krier and Carl Remeeus, a prominent Milwaukee real estate broker. Such a circular was sent one Barry, and this was read by Roetz. Roetz was attracted by the farm and called up Remeeus. Remeeus said that he knew little about the place and he suggested that Krier could give Roetz the information. Thereupon Roetz made an appointment with Krier to be shown the property. Krier went to the farm with Roetz, exhibited the place and quoted a price to Roetz of $30,000. Roetz said that he would think it over.
Roetz had a friend named Bichler who had been a farmer and who, like Krier, lived in Belgium. Roetz thought he could get good advice from his friend Bichler, so Roetz asked Bichler to look over the farm with him and advise him. After conferring with Bichler and looking over the farm together Roetz asked Bichler to inform Krier that he would make a counter offer of $27,000.
Bichler passed this word to Krier and Krier conveyed the counter offer to Kole. Kole accepted it. Kole had his lawyer superintend the legal details of the transfer and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kuehn v. Kuehn
...court's findings are so erroneous as to be contrary to the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence. See Weber v. Kole, 1959, 7 Wis.2d 107, 95 N.W.2d 784, where this court said this principle has been stated in almost every volume of Wisconsin Reports. This requires an examinati......
-
Clement v. United Cerebral Palsy of Southeastern Wisconsin, Inc.
...clear preponderance of the evidence. This principle has been stated in almost every volume of Wisconsin Reports." Weber v. Kole, 7 Wis.2d 107, 108, 95 N.W.2d 784, 785 (1958). At the trial, testimony was given regarding repeated examples of UCPA's De facto control of UCPSEW: First, the natio......
-
Fillar's Estate, In re
...the trier of the facts is the judge of the weight and credibility to be accorded to the testimony of the witnesses. In Weber v. Kole, 1959, 7 Wis.2d 107, 95 N.W.2d 784, we expressed the same rule and added that it is not sufficient for reversal that a contrary finding might have been made w......
-
Freitag's Will and Estate, In re
...and it is not sufficient for reversal that contrary findings might have been made with evidence in their support. Weber v. Kole, 1959, 7 Wis.2d 107, 95 N.W.2d 784. See 1 Callaghan's Wis.Dig., Appeal and Error, p. 578, sec. It is well established that in order to avoid a will because of undu......