Legal Opinion · Dissent

Standard Oil Co. v. La Crosse Super Auto Service, Inc.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided February 5, 1935Published

1DissentFowler, J.

The opinion of the court concedes that “if the gasoline pumps and tanks when installed *247were common-law fixtures, then they were subject to the lien of the Woolley mortgage, and could not be removed without the consent of Woolley. Fuller-Warren Co. v. Harter, 110 Wis. 80, 85 N. W. 698.” Thus the only difference between the parties is whether the tank and pumps were common-law fixtures.

There is great diversity among the cases as to what is a fixture, depending on whether the question arises between landlord and tenant, owner and lessee of a tenant, vendor and vendee, mortgagor and mortgagee, or…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Mills v. Taunton Savings BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1890
  2. Fuller-Warren Co. v. HarterWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
  3. Pierce v. GeorgeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
  4. Northwestern Lumber & Wrecking Co. v. ParkerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
  5. Huebschmann v. McHenryWisconsin Supreme Court · 1872

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API