163 Wis. 424 | Wis. | 1916
The controlling question in this case is whether Marian Turretin was a party as joint vendee with her husband in the contract with Cross and wife.
■ It is true that the evidence is meager on the point, but the court below found that it was the intention of the parties that Marian Turretin should be a party to the contract, but
It is further contended that defendant Nash did not have
It follows that the findings and conclusions of the court below are right, and the judgment must therefore be affirmed.
By the Court. — The judgment is affirmed.