Wiegand v. Gissal

Decision Date04 January 1966
Citation28 Wis.2d 488,138 N.W.2d 740
PartiesAshley O. WIEGAND et al., Respondents, v. Fred E. GISSAL et al., Appellants.
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

Niebler & Herro, Milwaukee, for respondents.

Binzak & Flanagan, Menomonee Falls, for appellants.


There are two statements contained in the foregoing opinion which are claimed by the respondents to be inaccurate.

In the opinion, 28 Wis.2d 488, 137 N.W.2d 412, it is asserted: 'The parties stipulated that no facts were in dispute * * *.' Upon rehearing, the respondents deny that there was such a stipulation, and their position on this is correct. However, both sides moved for summary judgment; it would appear that there were no factual issues in dispute. In his memorandum opinion, the trial judge declared:

'All of the parties involved take the position that there is no question of fact involved and that the issues are questions of law for the Court to determine on the motions for summary judgment.'

In their original brief in this court, the respondents specifically argued that the defendants were not entitled 'to complain that the court should have considered factual issues.' This, in our opinion, constitutes an acknowledgment by the respondents that the trial court was entirely correct in its assertion 'that there is no question of fact involved.' While we were technically in error in referring to a 'stipulation,' the practical effect of the bilateral summary judgment motions was the equivalent of a stipulation as to the facts.

The opinion of the court also stated that the rental payments made during the term of the lease were to be credited in favor of the tenant in the event of a purchase. The respondents charge that this statement is erroneous since only a portion of the rental payments was to be so credited. The respondents' position is literally correct, but the point is not deemed material to the merits of the cause.

Motion for rehearing denied without costs.

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Eichenseer v. Madison County Tavern League
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • May 6, 2008
    ...53 Wis.2d 513, 518, 192 N.W.2d 852 (1972) (citing Wiegand v. Gissal, 28 Wis.2d 488, 137 N.W.2d 412 (1965), rehearing denied, 28 Wis.2d 488, 495a, 138 N.W.2d 740-b, 28 Wis.2d 488, 138 N.W.2d 740 (1966)); Lucas v. Godfrey, 161 Wis.2d 51, 57, 467 N.W.2d 180 5. Problem drinking, related crimes,......
  • Hanson v. Madison Service Corp.
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Court of Appeals
    • May 11, 1989
    ...facts.' " Powalka v. State Mut. Life Assurance Co., 53 Wis.2d 513, 518, 192 N.W.2d 852, 854 (1972), quoting Wiegand v. Gissal, 28 Wis.2d 488, 495a-95b, 138 N.W.2d 740, 741 (1965). Despite that rule, the trial court, considering the factual record to be "inadequate," denied both MSC's and Ha......
  • Rossow Oil Co., Inc. v. Heiman, 75--35
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • June 2, 1976
    ...of real property is evidenced and specifically referable by a part performance, Wiegand v. Gissal (1965), 28 Wis.2d 488, 137 N.W.2d 412, 138 N.W.2d 740, or when other equitable considerations are applicable, Bratt v. Peterson (1966), 31 Wis.2d 447, 143 N.W.2d 538. These doctrines are now ge......
  • Zapuchlak v. Hucal, 75-638
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • February 7, 1978
    ...must describe with reasonable certainty the property to which it relates. Wiegand v. Gissal, 28 Wis.2d 488, 492, 137 N.W.2d 412, 138 N.W.2d 740 (1965). Failure to comply with the statute renders the contract void. Stuesser v. Ebel, 19 Wis.2d 591, 593, 120 N.W.2d 679 (1963). The question in ......
  • 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