Legal Opinion

Viking Automatic Sprinkler Co. v. Thwaits

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided May 1, 1934PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The following opinion was filed March 6, 1934:

Fritz, J.

It is true, on the one hand,- that under plaintiff’s conditional sale contract and ch. 122, Stats., in relation to such contracts, the equipment in question did not immediately upon installation become part of the realty, but was to continue as personal property belonging to the plaintiff, until the purchase-price was paid and title thereto was thereby acquired by the owner of the realty. However, on the other-hand, under the terms-of sec. 289.01, Stats., plaintiff could have a lien on the realty only upon the equipment being, by reason…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. William W. Bierce, Ltd. v. HutchinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1907
  2. Van Winkle v. CrowellSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  3. Roseliep v. HerroWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
  4. In re Levin, Kronenberg & Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1915

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. In re ElkinsDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1941
  2. Montana Dakota Power Co. v. JoySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1935

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API