Divan v. Loomis

Decided February 1, 1887

Wisconsin Supreme Court · decided 1887-02-01

The action was brought bjr Hiram Smith.' After the defendants had appealed to this court he died and the cause was revived in. the name of his executor, Henry Divan.

Relies on Bogie v. Bogie · Hammond et al. v. Mason and Hamlin Organ Company

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1887-02-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently November 1919

6 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 →

Cassodat, J.

¶1It is said that the complaint is insufficient because it fails to aver any request of Loomis to comply *152with the terms of the alleged agreement. An allegation of refusal implies a previous demand, and is equivalent to an allegation of a demand and a refusal. Hammond v. Mason & H. O. Co. 92 U. S. 724; Bogie v. Bogie, 41 Wis. 220. This being so, the breach is sufficiently alleged. Such agreement to furnish Smith a home, and to take care of and assist him to live in a comfortable manner, was personal upon the part of Loomis, and could not be shifted onto Trickle, against the will and-consent of Smith.

¶2By the Court.— The order of the circuit court is affirmed.