David G. Janes Co. v. Weed

253 N.W. 181, 214 Wis. 402, 1934 Wisc. LEXIS 111
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 6, 1934
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 253 N.W. 181 (David G. Janes Co. v. Weed) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
David G. Janes Co. v. Weed, 253 N.W. 181, 214 Wis. 402, 1934 Wisc. LEXIS 111 (Wis. 1934).

Opinions

RosenbeRRY, C. J.

So far as the contention made by the appealing defendants that the bowling alleys were not so affixed to the realty as to become a part thereof, this case [404]*404is ruled by Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co. v. Franzke-Schiffman R. Co. 211 Wis. 659, 248 N. W. 178. The building in this case was erected especially to accommodate the bowling alleys and the alleys were affixed to the realty in the same way that they were affixed in the Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co. Case. It is claimed, however, on behalf of the appellants, that the plaintiff always regarded the bowling alleys as personal property. This claim is based upon the fact that by the terms of the policies of insurance, which were taken out originally by Weed, the bowling alleys were separately insured, and upon the further fact that on March 19, 1931, the defendant Weed attempted to make a sale of the bowling-alley equipment to one Melik, upon which contract Melik paid down $50, which amount was credited by the plaintiff upon the purchase price of the premises. The proposed sale fell through, and it is argued that the acceptance of the $50 payment in some way operated as a severance so as to estop the plaintiff from claiming that the alleys in question were so affixed to the real estate as to become a part of it. It is considered that these circumstances have very little if any significance. The fact that a seller having a lien upon property might consent to a severance upon payment of the value of the severed property in no way disturbs his right as it existed prior to the making of the proposed arrangement, and the trial court correctly so concluded.

In the view which we take of the case it is not necessary for us to consider other questions raised.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Peccole v. Luce & Goodfellow, Inc.
212 P.2d 718 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1949)
American Laundry Machinery Co. v. Larson
257 N.W. 608 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
253 N.W. 181, 214 Wis. 402, 1934 Wisc. LEXIS 111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-g-janes-co-v-weed-wis-1934.