1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. Wis.2d
  4. 5 Wis.2d
  5. 5 Wis.2d 130 (1958)
 

HUCK v. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. R. CO.

5 Wis.2d 130 (1958)

HUCK, Plaintiff, v. CHICAGO, ST. PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS & OMAHA RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant: DOUGHBOY INDUSTRIES, INC., Interpleaded Defendant and Respondent: MINNEAPOLIS, ST. PAUL & SAULT STE. MARIE RAILWAY COMPANY, Interpleaded Defendant and Appellant.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

October 7, 1958.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

For the appellant there were briefs by Reginald W. Nelson of Milwaukee, attorney, and Edward M. Glennon of Minneapolis, Minnesota, of counsel, and oral argument by Mr. Nelson.

For the respondent there were briefs by Stafford, Pfiffner & Stafford of Chippewa Falls, and oral argument by Robert F. Pfiffner.

FAIRCHILD, J.

The Soo Line argues that it is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the cross complaint because the undisputed facts show that it cannot be liable to plaintiff, so as to be liable to the Omaha for contribution if the Omaha be liable to plaintiff, and because on no theory could the Soo Line be liable to indemnify the Omaha. The Omaha has not asserted that the Soo Line is or may be liable to it, but has asserted a right to be indemnified by Doughboy...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases