Standard Oil Co. v. La Crosse Super Auto Service, Inc.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
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
- Mills v. Taunton Savings BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1890
- Fuller-Warren Co. v. HarterWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
- Pierce v. GeorgeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
- Northwestern Lumber & Wrecking Co. v. ParkerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- Huebschmann v. McHenryWisconsin Supreme Court · 1872
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.