Keefe v. Furlong

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Keefe v. Furlong

70 N.W. 1110, 96 Wis. 219, 1897 Wisc. LEXIS 262

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedApril 30, 1897

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 70 N.W. 1110 (Keefe v. Furlong) 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

Keefe v. Furlong, 70 N.W. 1110, 96 Wis. 219, 1897 Wisc. LEXIS 262 (Wis. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Winslow, J.

There is really but one question in this case, and that is whether the machinery in question was a part of [222]*222the realty, as between the parties to the action. The principle is well settled that parties may treat as personal property machinery which would otherwise be part of the realty, and thus convert it into personal property as between themselves. Smith v. Waggoner, 50 Wis. 155; Fitzgerald v. Anderson, 81 Wis. 342. It seems very clear that this is just what has been done here. By the agreement of division of property, and the lease executed by Keefe and Sammond and Stephens in July, 1890, all of the machinery in question was treated as personalty, and in fact conveyed as such to Sam-mond and Stephens. The defendant here traces title to such property directly from Sammond and Stephens. He was rightfully in possession when this action was commenced, and had a perfect right to sell and remove the articles in question.

By the Oov/rt.— Judgment affirmed.

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

Winslow, J.

There is really but one question in this case, and that is whether the machinery in question was a part of [222]*222the realty, as between the parties to the action. The principle is well settled that parties may treat as personal property machinery which would otherwise be part of the realty, and thus convert it into personal property as between themselves. Smith v. Waggoner, 50 Wis. 155; Fitzgerald v. Anderson, 81 Wis. 342. It seems very clear that this is just what has been done here. By the agreement of division of property, and the lease executed by Keefe and Sammond and Stephens in July, 1890, all of the machinery in question was treated as personalty, and in fact conveyed as such to Sam-mond and Stephens. The defendant here traces title to such property directly from Sammond and Stephens. He was rightfully in possession when this action was commenced, and had a perfect right to sell and remove the articles in question.

By the Oov/rt.— Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 N.W. 1110, 96 Wis. 219, 1897 Wisc. LEXIS 262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keefe-v-furlong-wis-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack