Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

163 Wis. 166

Huebner v. Huebner

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided May 2, 1916

Wisconsin Supreme Court · decided 1916-05-02

Williams, Circuit Judge. Action for breach of contract. The plaintiff is the widow of the defendant’s crippled son, Ben Huebner. The defendant owned a building at 1532 Yliet street, Milwaukee, and ojoerated a saloon therein for some time prior to May 1, 1912, on which date he sold the business, stock, and fixtures to Ben for $2,260, of which $1,000 was paid down, Ben agreeing to pay $45 per month rent for the premises and to pay the balance of the purchase price as he could.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The rule is well established in this court that past profits of an established business constitute a legitimate basis upon which to estimate the future profits of the same business conducted in the same manner, and that in a proper case such future profits may be recovered when the plaintiff has been prevented from making them by the wrongful conduct of the defendant.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Goodwin v. von Cotzhausen

Relies on Gross v. Heckert · Forster, Waterbury Co. v. F. MacKinnon Manufacturing Co. · Olson v. Olson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1916-05-02

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently May 1958

3 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

3019161920193019401950decided

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 →

Winslow, O. J.

¶1But two contentions are argued in the appellant’s brief, namely, (1) that the agreement claimed by the plaintiff to have been made between the defendant and herself was void because without consideration, and (2) that *170no damages could properly be allowed for loss of profits of the business. Neither contention can be sustained.

¶21. The agreement testified to by the plaintiff, though somewhat remarkable in its terms, is not incredible, and was in effect an agreement to render personal services on the one side and to make payment for them in a certain way on the other. In such agreements there is no lack of consideration, even though no money be paid at the time. ' It is a case of a promise for a promise; each is the consideration for the other. Olson v. Olson, 149 Wis. 248,135 N. W. 836. If this contract had been made on May 29th alone, it might perhaps be objected that it was not to be performed within a year and hence void under the statute of frauds because not in writing. Sec. 2307, Stats. 1913. Plaintiff testified, however, that the same agreement was reiterated July 1, 1913, and, while the jury were not asked whether the contract was reiterated on that date, it must be presumed in support of the judgment that the court so found, no request having been made by the appellant to submit to the jury a question covering this point. Sec. 2858m, Stats. 1913.

¶32. The rule is well established in this court that past profits of an established business constitute a legitimate basis upon which to estimate the future profits of the same business conducted in the same manner, and that in a proper case such future profits may be recovered when the plaintiff has been prevented from making them by the wrongful conduct of the defendant. Gross v. Heckert, 120 Wis. 314, 97 N. W. 952; Forster, Waterbury Co. v. F. MacKinnon M. Co. 130 Wis. 281, 110 N. W. 226.

¶4No other contentions are made which it is deemed necessary to discuss.

¶5By ¡the Court. — Judgment affirmed.

/163/wis/166 · .json · Public domain