Huntley v. Stanchfield
| Decision Date | 13 July 1921 |
| Citation | 183 N.W. 984,174 Wis. 565 |
| Parties | HUNTLEY v. STANCHFIELD ET AL. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Grant County; L. H. Bancroft, Judge.
Proceeding on order to show cause why defendant should not be punished for contempt for violation of an injunctional order by Murray B. Huntley, by L. N. Patnaude, assignee, against Nellie E. Stanchfield and Nina B. Schultz. From an order dismissing the order to show cause on the merits, plaintiff appeals. Order reversed, and cause remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings according to law.
See, also, 168 Wis. 119, 169 N. W. 276.
In 1916 L. N. Patnaude owned two hotel properties at Platteville, Wis., known respectively as the Columbia Hotel and the Republican House. He operated the Columbia Hotel, and used the Republican House as a lodging place for overflow guests of the Columbia Hotel. On October 16, 1916, Patnaude entered into a contract with Murray B. Huntley and Scott Huntley to convey the Columbia Hotel property to them for the sum of $35,000. The contract contained a provision that the Republican House, owned by Louis N. Patnaude, should not be operated as a hotel for 15 years from the date of the execution of the deed. On January 4, 1917, Scott Huntley and wife conveyed their interest in the Columbia Hotel property to Murray B. Huntley. On December 13, 1916, Patnaude conveyed the Republican House property to Carl F. Bareis. The conveyance contained a provision that the property should not be used as a hotel for 15 years from November 14, 1916. On May 23, 1917, Carl F. Bareis and wife conveyed the Republican House property to the defendants, Nellie E. Stanchfield and Nina B. Schultz, which conveyance contained the provision that the property should not be used as a hotel for 15 years from November 14, 1916. On August 24, 1917, Murray B. Huntley brought action in the circuit court for Grant county to enjoin the defendants from using the Republican House property as a hotel. The circuit court held that because the proof showed no meals were served to guests that the property was not being used as a hotel, and hence there was no violation of the restrictive covenant. Upon appeal this judgment was reversed by the Supreme Court, and judgment was entered enjoining the defendants from using the Republican House property as a hotel.
On September 10, 1919, Patnaude repurchased the Columbia Hotel property from the plaintiff, and Huntley assigned to him all his rights under the judgment, together with the damages sustained by him by reason of the violation of the injunction by the defendants. 168 Wis. 119, 169 N. W. 276.
This proceeding was brought in the circuit court of Grant county upon an order to show cause why the defendants should not be punished for contempt for violation of the injunctional order in the above-mentioned case. The order to show cause was based upon affidavits of L. N. Patnaude, Russell Williams, and Murray B. Huntley, alleging that the defendants advertise and compete for transient trade for the Republican House property, now known as the Stanchfield Apartments, that a part of the property is occupied by transient guests, and that a grille room is maintained on the premises in which meals are served to guests. The affidavits also assert that the property is being used as and for a hotel. There were affidavits submitted by the defendants denying the fact that the Stanchfield is used for transient guests, and as a hotel.
The case was tried upon the affidavits, and the circuit court dismissed the order on the merits. This is an appeal from such order.
Olin, Butler, Thomas, Stebbins & Stroud, of Madison, and Gardner & Gardner, of Platteville, for appellant.
Fiedler, Fiedler & Jackson, of Mineral Point, for respondents.
SIEBECKER, C. J. (after stating the facts as above).
[1] The trial court held that the facts shown by the record and affidavits filed in the proceeding do not show that the defendants violated the injunctional order made in the original action, and dismissed the order to show cause why the defendants should not be punished for contempt for violating the injunctional order. The plaintiff claims that it is clearly shown by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Solowicz v. FORWARD GENEVA NAT., LLC
...as to their reasonableness." Star Direct, Inc. v. Dal Pra, 2009 WI 76, ¶ 19, 319 Wis.2d 274, 767 N.W.2d 898. In Huntley v. Stanchfield, 174 Wis. 565, 183 N.W. 984 (1921), cited by Solowicz, Patnaude sold a hotel property with a restrictive covenant in the deed that prohibited the property f......
-
Everson v. Wieckert
...the authorities just discussed and under the test for reasonableness of such a restriction first expressed in Huntley v. Stanchfield, 174 Wis. 565, 570, 183 N.W. 984, 986 (1921): Is the restriction a reasonable one under all the facts and circumstances of the transaction in light of the "si......
-
Brunswick Corp., Mercury Marine Division v. Hering
...of the transaction including the business involved, and interests which the parties seek to protect. Huntley v. Stanchfield, 174 Wis. 565, 183 N.W. 984, 986 (1921). However, it is well settled that the covenant to be valid must be reasonable as to scope, duration and geographic area of appl......
-
McKinnon v. Benedict
...of the free use of the property. Stein v. Endres Home Builders, Inc. (1938), 228 Wis. 620, 629, 280 N.W. 316. Huntley v. Stanchfield (1921), 174 Wis. 565, 570, 183 N.W. 984, 986, stands for the proposition that, where a covenant prohibited the use of a former lodging house as a hotel, the r......