Legal Opinion

In Re Bossell, Van Vechten & Chapman

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided February 1, 1966PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHallows, J.

We agree with the trial court this assignment is a security device and constitutes a chattel mortgage. While assignments of contractors’ tools and equipment under similar circumstances have been held to be valid they have not been sustained on the theory of an absolute transfer of property secret in nature. Surety companies are not in the business of buying the assets of their customers. In this state a deed, bill of sale or assignment given for security is not controlled by its form but is treated and considered, what in substance it is, a security device. Rheingans v. Hepfler (1943), 243…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. State v. BullenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1910
  2. Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. WitmireCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1912
  3. Manufacturers' Bank of Milwaukee v. RugeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1884
  4. Rheingans v. HepflerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1943
  5. Sweet v. Department of TaxationWisconsin Supreme Court · 1955

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. United States Can Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1989
  2. Gauer v. GauerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
  3. Admanco, Inc. v. 700 Stanton Drive, LLCCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2009
  4. ADMANCO, INC. EX REL. POLSKY v. StantonCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2009
  5. ADMANCO, Inc. ex rel. Polsky v. 700 Stanton Drive, LLCWisconsin Supreme Court · 2010

3 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