Estate of Weil

7 Citing cases

  1. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Tanner

    279 F. Supp. 396 (D. Colo. 1968)   Cited 13 times

    "The cases decided under this section establish the principle that a liability arising as a result of a breach of an officer's duty as an officer of a corporation is non-dischargeable. It is clear that if an officer converts to his own use property owned by the corporation of which he is an officer, the liability for such conversion is non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. (In re Weil's Estate, 249 Wis. 385, 24 N.W.2d 662 (1946) Cert. denied, 331 U.S. 807 [ 67 S.Ct. 1190, 91 L.Ed. 1828] (1947); Re Hammond, 98 F.2d 703 (2nd Cir. 1938), Cert. denied, 305 U.S. 646 [ 59 S.Ct. 149, 83 L.Ed. 418] (1939)."

  2. Laundry v. Schott

    196 N.W.2d 692 (Wis. 1972)   Cited 4 times

    Werner v. Riemer (1949), 255 Wis. 386, 403, 39 N.W.2d 457, 39 N.W.2d 917; Cohan v. Associated Fur Farms, Inc. (1952), 261 Wis. 584, 597, 53 N.W.2d 788; Northwestern National Casualty Co. v. State Automobile Casualty Underwriters (1967), 35 Wis.2d 237, 244, 151 N.W.2d 104.Estate of Weil (1946), 249 Wis. 385, 391, 24 N.W.2d 662; Kriesel v. Kriesel (1967), 35 Wis.2d 134, 138, 150 N.W.2d 416. As part of their answer respondents submitted a copy of the record in the first proceeding.

  3. Kriesel v. Kriesel

    35 Wis. 2d 134 (Wis. 1967)   Cited 23 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Kriesel v. Kriesel, 35 Wis.2d 134, 150 N.W.2d 416 (1967), the husband's defense to contempt was the arbitrariness of the original divorce judgment, which although arguably vulnerable to attack, was not appealed.

    "As no appeal was taken from the circuit court judgment to that effect, all provisions therein and in the findings and conclusions upon which it is based are res adjudicata, and therefore conclusive and binding between appellant and all parties to the litigation." Estate of Weil (1946), 249 Wis. 385, 391, 24 N.W.2d 662. To avoid the bar of res judicata, and no longer being able to take a direct appeal, the appellant has collaterally attacked the original judgment by asserting as a defense to the present contempt charge that the original judgment reserving the right to make alimony payments was invalid.

  4. Thompson v. Sloan

    130 N.W.2d 256 (Wis. 1964)   Cited 2 times
    In Thompson v. Sloan (1964), 24 Wis.2d 626, 630, 130 N.W.2d 256, we quoted with approval Tinker v. Colwell (1904), 193 U.S. 473, 487, 24 Sup. Ct. 505, 48 L.Ed. 754, which discussed what acts might be considered willful and malicious.

    At the conclusion of the testimony, the trial court said, "Judgment is ordered for negligence." Under the law of this state, the court is permitted to consider the entire record in determining whether a judgment is entitled to be discharged by reason of bankruptcy. Bastian v. LeRoy (1963), 20 Wis.2d 470, 478, 122 N.W.2d 386; Aetna Casualty Surety Co. v. Lauerman (1961), 12 Wis.2d 387, 394, 107 N.W.2d 605; Estate of Weil (1946), 249 Wis. 385, 394, 24 N.W.2d 662; Klatt v. Helming (1946), 248 Wis. 139, 142, 21 N.W.2d 261. Using this standard, the trial court correctly concluded that the act of Mr. Sloan in instructing an unlicensed driver (his wife) to step on the starter was an act of carelessness and upon this record does not rise to the dignity of being wilful, wanton, or malicious. Mr. Sloan's acts fall considerably short of those described in Tinker v. Colwell (1904), 193 U.S. 473, 487, 24 Sup. Ct. 505, 48 L.Ed. 754; in that case, the United States supreme court discussed what acts might be considered wilful and malicious and stated:

  5. Bastian v. LeRoy

    20 Wis. 2d 470 (Wis. 1963)   Cited 13 times

    In determining whether the liability of a judgment debtor is dischargeable in bankruptcy under sec. 17 (a) of the Bankruptcy Act, Wisconsin follows the liberal practice of permitting a court to look behind a judgment and to consider the entire record, and the actual fact disclosed thereby as the basis for the adjudged liability will govern.Aetna Casualty Surety Co. v. Lauerman (1961), 12 Wis.2d 387, 107 N.W.2d 605; Klatt v. Helming (1946), 248 Wis. 139, 21 N.W.2d 261; Estate of Weil (1946), 249 Wis. 385, 24 N.W.2d 662; Globe Indemnity Co. v. Granskov (1944), 246 Wis. 87, 16 N.W.2d 437. Applying this rule to the instant case, Judge LANDRY was permitted to look behind the judgment entered on the basis of Judge SWIETLIK'S findings of fact and conclusions of law to ascertain whether or not this LeRoy judgment was dischargeable in bankruptcy.

  6. Hunter v. Commercial Sec. Co.

    113 So. 2d 127 (Miss. 1959)   Cited 2 times

    I. The judgment entered against appellant on May 5, 1954, is based upon a liability for obtaining money or property by false pretenses or false representations, and for willful and malicious injury to the person or property of another, within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 35(2). Automatic, Inc. v. Berkum, 4 Ill. App.2d 60, 143 N.E.2d 63; Bank of Williamsville v. Amhurst Motor Sales, 254 N.Y. Supp. 825; In re Brier, 3 F.2d 709; Halagan v. Dowell, 139 N.W. 883; Heaphy v. Kerr, 180 N.Y. Supp. 542, 134 N.E. 557; In re Keeler, 243 Fed. 770; McIntyre v. Kavanaugh, 242 U.S. 138, 61 L.Ed. 205; Mason v. Sault, 93 Vt. 412, 108 A. 267; Probst v. Jones, 262 Mich. 678, 247 N.W. 779; Sabinal National Bank v. Bryant, 221 S.W. 940; State v. May, 208 Miss. 862, 45 So.2d 723; In re Weil's Estate, 249 Wis. 385, 24 N.W.2d 662; 11 U.S.C. § 35(a); Collier Bankruptcy Manual, Sec. 17.00; Griffith's Mississippi Chancery Practice (2d ed.) Sec. 502. II. The lower court was correct in basing its finding of non-dischargeability on the record before it. Carroll v. Jones, 141 N.E.2d 240; In re Minsky, 46 F. Supp. 104; Morris v. City of Columbia, 184 Miss. 342, 186 So. 292; Rice v. Guider, 275 Mich. 14, 265 N.W. 777; Thomas v. Crosby, 146 F. Supp. 296; 8 C.J.S., Sec. 587 p. 1591; Griffith's Mississippi Chancery Practice (2d ed.), Sec. 572.

  7. Shawano Finance Corp. v. Haase

    30 N.W.2d 82 (Wis. 1947)   Cited 2 times

    It is the contention of the plaintiff that the court may go behind the record in the action against the defendants and determine the character of the liability. This, according to the great weight of authority, the plaintiff may not do. Estate of Weil, 249 Wis. 385, 24 N.W.2d 662; Rice v. Guider, 275 Mich. 14, 265 N.W. 777; Ehnes v. Generazzo, 19 N.J. Misc. 393, 20 A.2d 513. Klatt v. Helming, 248 Wis. 139, 21 N.W.2d 261, is precisely in point.