¶1(dissenting in part). Under the liberal rules for the construction of pleadings which this court has adopted and which it generally follows, it should be held that the complaint in this case contains sufficient by way of averment to state a cause of action for damages for false representations. The complaint alleges that defendant repeatedly informed the plaintiff that the note had not been collected, and, further, that she did not know that it had been collected until November, 1910, whereupon demand was made, etc. The implication may fairly be drawn from these averments that plaintiff did not bring her action within the six-year period because of the false representations. If this is true, she necessarily relied on them, and the. order should be reversed.
152 Wis. 97
Ott v. Hood
Decided January 28, 1913
Wisconsin Supreme Court · decided 1913-01-28
'Appeal from an order of the circuit court for La Crosse county: E. C. Higbbe, Circuit Judge. Action to recover on contract. The complaint is to this, effect: The plaintiff delivered to defendant, an attorney at law, practicing the profession thereof in La Crosse, Wisconsin, a promissory note for collection. July 28, 1892, he collected thereon $200.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Affirmed · Decided 1913-01-28
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently March 1993 · most notably 174 Wis. 2d 604 - CLL Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Arrowhead Pacific Corp. (1993), 48 Wis. 2d 528 - Denzer v. Rouse (1970)
23 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →