Grover L. Broadfoot

This case involved a divorced mother who was held in contempt after custody of her minor children was transferred to a county welfare department and she disposed of their clothing, personal effects, and furniture. The court decided to affirm the contempt orders, requiring her to pay $100 to purge the contempt related to the clothing and to turn over the furniture. The core reasoning was that parents have a continuing common-law and statutory duty to support their minor children regardless of divorce or transfer of legal custody, that the mother's actions were malicious and violated this duty as well as explicit court orders, and that the evidence supported the replacement value set by the trial court while she had opportunities to contest it but did not.

family law

This case involved a dispute over the amount of compensation due to property owners whose land was taken by the Milwaukee County Expressway Commission for highway purposes in 1959. The plaintiffs challenged several evidentiary rulings from the trial, including the admission of evidence about the low prices they had paid for the property in 1951 and 1956, the admission of a 1958 sale of nearby land, the exclusion of parol evidence about the terms of their purchase, and the exclusion of evidence based on a long-term lease of comparable property across the highway. The court held that the trial judge did not commit prejudicial error in any of these rulings: the prior purchase prices were admissible when offered because no evidence of changed market conditions existed at that moment and no later motion to strike was made; the comparable sale was a voluntary arms-length transaction; parol evidence could not vary the written contract; and evidence of the neighboring lease was properly excluded to avoid collateral issues. Because the jury's award of fair market value fell within the range of competent testimony, the judgment was affirmed.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a real estate broker seeking recovery of a commission from buyers under an agreement for the purchase of land. The court examined whether the written agreement complied with Wisconsin Statute sec. 240.10, which voids commission contracts for real estate sales unless they are in writing, describe the property, state the price and commission terms, and are signed by the party agreeing to pay. The attached agreement referenced the broker and a deduction from the purchase price but contained no promise by the defendants to pay any commission, instead indicating payment would come from the seller. The court concluded that the agreement did not substantially comply with the statute, so the complaint failed to state a cause of action and the defendants' demurrer should have been sustained, leading to reversal of the lower court's order.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved plaintiffs, owners of a farm, seeking damages for the complete loss of an old storage building destroyed by fire. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendants after excluding evidence of replacement costs and finding insufficient proof of the building's value or its contents. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the proper measure of damages was the building's actual value given its age and condition rather than undepreciated replacement cost or the difference in the farm's market value; it also rejected challenges to jurisdiction based on the guardian ad litem's unverified answer. Plaintiffs had the burden to present competent evidence of value, which they did not meet.

propertytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerns whether an employer can face tort liability or contribution claims from a third party after an employee injury covered by workers' compensation. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order sustaining a demurrer, ruling that the employer's sole liability for such injuries is under the Workmen's Compensation Law. The decision follows prior cases holding that the act's exclusivity provision grants employers immunity from all tort claims, whether by the employee or others, in exchange for absolute liability without regard to fault. The court explained that the employer's statutory obligation differs in kind from tort damages and therefore prevents joint tort-feasor status under contribution statutes or common law.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

The case concerned whether Janet Cochran was acting as John Allyn's agent when she drove his car and was involved in an accident, which affected the defendants' liability. The sole issue on appeal was the propriety of the jury question on agency, which the trial court phrased as whether Cochran was driving Allyn's automobile as his agent, rather than the more detailed version requested by the defendants. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the submitted question was acceptable because the term "agent" is commonly understood, the jury instructions on agency were correct, and ownership of the vehicle created an unrebutted presumption of agency. The court noted that the evidence supported the jury's finding and that the defendants suffered no prejudice from the question's form.

torts & liabilityprocedure