Edwards v. Wis. Inv. Co.

• Decision Date: 21 February 1905
• Citation: 124 Wis. 315,102 N.W. 575
• Parties: EDWARDS v. WISCONSIN INV. CO. ET AL.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

124 Wis. 315

102 N.W. 575

EDWARDS

v.WISCONSIN INV. CO. ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Feb. 21, 1905.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Ashland County; John K. Parish, Judge.

Action by H. E. Edwards against the Wisconsin Investment Company and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

The defendant, a corporation, was engaged in a general loan business, and had obtained by assignment a mortgage upon certain property, described in the instrument as follows: “A complete saw mill, consisting of one Brumard engine, carriage, rotary and husks, live rolls and edger, carriage and chains, one boiler, smokestack, together with all the equipments and everything appertaining thereto or in any way connected therewith * * * which said property * * * is now free and clear from any prior lien or incumbrance.” This mortgage was executed on October 28, 1901. On March 1, 1902, Raarup Bros. leased to the assignee of the Wisconsin Investment Company a bull chain, with shafting and belting, used for hauling logs out of the water up to the saw. About the 1st of February, 1904, Mr. John F. Dufur, president, treasurer, and general manager of the defendant company, entered into negotiations with the plaintiff for the sale of mill property. Plaintiff, at the request of Dufur, examined the mill property, and found the bull chain on the mill premises set up for use in connection with the property covered by the chattel mortgage. On February 16, 1904, Dufur executed a bill of sale, and left it with one Younker to be delivered to the plaintiff on payment of $250, the agreed price. Plaintiff, some weeks afterward, paid the purchase price, and received the bill of sale, which contains the following description of the property: “A complete saw mill, consisting of one Brumard engine, carriage, rotary, husks, live rolls and edger, carriage chains, etc., one boiler, smokestack, together with all equipments and everything pertaining thereto or in any way connected therewith.” The bill of sale also contains the following: “This sale is by virtue of a certain chattel mortgage, a copy of which is hereto annexed, and said sale is made in accordance with said mortgage, * * * and covers the property which is sold or evidenced by this bill of sale.” Plaintiff had gone into possession of the property before he had obtained the bill of sale. Two days after receiving the bill of sale, plaintiff was informed by one of the Raarup brothers of their ownership of the bull chain and the belting and shafting connecting it with the engine, and he paid them $125 for title to the property which was covered by their lease. This action is brought under the bill of sale to recover the money so paid by plaintiff, and is founded on a breach of the warranty of title to the bull chain and the belting and shafting connecting it with the engine. The action was commenced in the municipal court for Ashland county, and resulted in a judgment for plaintiff. On the trial de novo in the circuit court, to which defendant appealed, plaintiff attempted to introduce evidence to the effect that the bull chain and attachments were included in the purchase and were covered in the description in the bill of sale, but the court rejected such evidence, and held that no parol proof could be received to explain the terms of the bill of sale. At the conclusion of plai...