Lakeside Resort Corp. v. Sprague

The parties agree that only one question is involved. It may he stated as follows: Should the trial court have held as a matter of law that the so-called amusement .park equipment, listed in plaintiff’s affidavit for a writ of replevin, was real estate ?

The disputed matters were submitted to a jury; plaintiff had a verdict for the return of the property and six.cents as damages-for its retention.

The property in controversy was the usual amusement park equipment, consisting generally of the following items:

1. Roller coaster structure of wood, a 75 h. p. motor and wiring, 440-foot link belt…