Guetzkow Bros. Co. v. Breese

• Decision Date: 24 June 1897
• Citation: 72 N.W. 45,96 Wis. 591
• Parties: GUETZKOW BROS. CO. v. BREESE ET AL.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

96 Wis. 591

72 N.W. 45

GUETZKOW BROS. CO.

v.BREESE ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

June 24, 1897.

Appeal from circuit court, Milwaukee county; D. H. Johnson, Judge.

Action by Guetzkow Bros. Company against Llewellyn Breese and another to recover money paid under duress of goods. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appeal. Affirmed.

This is an action to recover $506.74, alleged to have been extorted from plaintiff corporation by the defendants by duress of goods. The action was tried by the court. There were many facts which are not disputed, and these facts may be briefly stated as follows: In April, 1892, the firm of Grant, Breese & Co. owned certain lots in the city of Milwaukee, on which they constructed at about that time a large factory building and a smaller building for a machine shop and boiler house. Those buildings were constructed for them by the Guetzkow Bros. Co., and cost $6,200. On the 30th day of April, 1892, Grant, Breese & Co. leased to the plaintiff corporation said lots and the buildings thereon for a term of 10 years from the 1st of May, 1892, at an annual rental of $1,620, to be paid in monthly installments in advance. By the terms of said lease, among other things, the lessors agreed to rebuild the buildings in case they were destroyed by fire, to keep the docks adjoining the premises in good repair, and the slip properly dredged, to maintain a railroad side track upon the premises, to pay all taxes on the premises, the lessee, however, to reimburse the lessors for such amount of the taxes as were levied upon the buildings. The lessee, upon its part, agreed to pay the rent as specified, to quietly deliver up the premises at the end of the term in as good condition as when it took possession, inevitable accident and ordinary wear and loss by fire without its neglect excepted; “also to keep the buildings upon said premises and the machinery contained constantly insured in a good, responsible insurance company or companies for not less than six thousand two hundred dollars, payable, in case of loss, to the said lessors as their interest may appear.” It was further provided in the lease that the lessors should have a lien on the dry kiln and barn to be erected by the lessee upon the premises, and upon the engine and boiler to be placed by said lessee in the aforesaid engine house,--said dry kiln, barn, and boilers to cost not less than $5,800,--to secure the payment of the rent and any other sum to be paid by the lessee to the lessors under the lease; the lessee having the right to remove said dry kiln, barn, engine, and boiler at the expiration of the lease, and after full payment of any sum due thereon. The remaining provisions of the lease are not necessary to be stated. Immediately upon the execution of this lease the plaintiff corporation went into possession of the property, and conducted its business of contracting and building thereon up to the time of the fire which destroyed the larger building or machine shop March 31, 1895. The plaintiff corporation placed in the buildings a large amount of machinery, as was necessary for conducting its business, and also placed upon the premises a considerable quantity of manufactured and unmanufactured lumber. In February, 1895, there was upon the entire premises $25,000 in insurance, mostly in policies of $1,000 each, which had been placed thereon by the plaintiff corporation. The beneficiaries named in each of the policies were “L. L. and W. L. Breese and Guetzkow Brothers Co., as interest may appear.” (L. L. and W. L. Breese had succeeded Grant, Breese & Co. in the ownership of the premises prior to this time.) Each thousand dollars of insurance was divided into items covering different classes and pieces of property. Thus out of each $1,000 of insurance $133.33 was placed upon the machine shop, $333.33 on the fixed and movable machinery of all descriptions, $300 on the lumber and stock of all descriptions, $33.34 on the boiler and engine house, $133.33 on the engine, boiler, and appurtenances. There were also smaller items, which it is unnecessary to state. By computation it will be easily seen that the amount of insurance upon the factory building in the whole $25,000 of insurance was $3,333.26, and upon the brick engine house $833.50; thus making the amount of insurance upon the buildings owned by the appellants $4,166.76, and leaving a balance of $20,833.24 upon the machinery, stock, and other property owned by the plaintiff corporation. February 15, 1895, there was a small fire, which destroyed property to the amount of a little over $500 belonging to the plaintiff corporation, and in which the Breeses had no interest. This loss was adjusted, and after its adjustment the gross amount of insurance was $24,458.46, but the protection to the respondent stood the same as before. On the 31st of March, 1895, a fire occurred which totally destroyed the factory building, but not the engine house. At this time the plaintiff corporation was in arrears of rent between $1,800 and $1,900. It became necessary at once to make out proofs of loss, and then occurred the difficulty which gave rise to this action. There is a dispute in the testimony as to just what took place between the parties at this time. The claim of the plaintiff is that the defendants insisted that they must have $4,000 out of the insurance money on account of the loss of the building, and that they would not sign the proofs of loss until they were assured that sum; nor would they sign the drafts payable to the joint order of both parties until they were assured that they would receive $4,000. The plaintiff also claims that at that time it had numerous contracts on hand for the construction of buildings, and that it was absolutely necessary for it to settle the losses at once in order to go on with its business, and that by stress of these facts it was compelled under duress to agree to pay $666.74 to the defendants, which they were under no legal obligations to pay, and that they did thereafter pay $506.74 of said sum. The claim of the...