General Business Security Agreement Wisconsin Bankers Association

Bronson C. La Follette, Attorney General, John E. Armstrong, Assistant Attorney General, and William R. Hotz, Von Attorney, all of Madison, for wisconsin Commissioner of Savings and Loan, filed a short Amicus curiae. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument by ruling that “the legislative provision that savings and depositors are paid to the saver or the owner is expressly respected if the address of a depositor to be paid to a third party is taken into account by the savings and loan association on which the project is drawn.” Wisconsin Bankers Asso. v. Mutual Savings – Loan Asso., 87 Wis.2d at 502-03. Although the court found “unambiguous,” id. to 493, which can be constructed and interpreted, the court went to the stats., s.a. 215.17, it was found that the section required construction and interpretation. The Court of Appeal found that the provisions of the section providing that withdrawals are paid “to the owner” and “saver” do not restrict payments to third parties given the commercial and legal history of the pay-to rate, the nature of the publisher-association ratio,450 and an articulated “legislative policy in favour of commercial competition.” Id. at 498. We believe that this conclusion and justification are wrong.

Similarly, we reject the confidence of the Court of Appeal in the “Declaration of Legislative Policy in Favour of Business Competition.” See section 133.01, Stats.┬áId. at 498, 502. While the statutes in pari materia can be interpreted and compared together to determine legislative intent, are in Matter of Estate of Walker, 75 Wis. 2d 93, 102, 248 N.W.2d 410 (1977), statutes that have no common purpose or purpose and do not deal with the same subject, thing or person, not in Pari materia. The Rules on Agreements and Abuse of Dominance, 133.01 and p. 215.17, Stats. are not in pari materia. As we have recently seen, Wisconsin courts generally require that a complainant not be a judicial condition, but a sound judicial policy issue. State ex rel.

First National Bank of Wisconsin Rapids v.M – I Peoples Bank of Coloma, 95 Wis. 2d 303, 308 n. 5, 290 N.W.2d 321, 325 n. 5 (1980). Although we are not excluded from the question of whether the applicants disagree with Mutual`s failure to raise the issue (see z.B. Scharping v. Johnson, 32 p. 3d 383, 395, 145 N.W.2d 691 (1966); Appendixes and letters, theft.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.