Robicheau v. Arnovitz

• Decision Date: 10 March 1925
• Citation: 186 Wis. 397,202 N.W. 794
• Parties: ROBICHEAU ET AL. v. ARNOVITZ ET AL.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

186 Wis. 397

202 N.W. 794

ROBICHEAU ET AL.

v.ARNOVITZ ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

March 10, 1925.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Oconto County; W. B. Quinlan, Judge.

Action by George A. Robicheau and another, copartners, against Peter Arnovitz and another, copartners. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

This was an action to recover damages for the unlawful removal of stanchions from a barn which was part of the premises which plaintiffs had purchased on a foreclosure sale. The stanchions were permanently attached to the barn by means of concrete settings. It appears that judgment of foreclosure and sale of the property in question was duly entered, and the sheriff sold the same on November 3, 1923, to the plaintiffs, and that on that day he issued his sheriff's deed for the property to the plaintiffs, and delivered the same on November 13, 1923. This sale and deed were confirmed by the court on November 27, 1923. The stanchions were removed between the two latter dates, that is, after the delivery of the deed to the plaintiffs and before the confirmation. The case was tried before the court and a jury. The jury rendered a special verdict to the effect that the defendants removed the stanchions from their concrete settings in the barn after November 13, 1923, and assessed damages at $500. The special verdict was supplemented by a decision of the court to the effect that such stanchions were removed prior to November 27, 1923, the date of the confirmation of the sale. The court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in the sum of $500. Defendants appeal and assign as errors the failure of the court to award judgment in favor of the defendants, notwithstanding the special verdict, and in granting judgment to the plaintiffs.Irving Breakstone, of Oconto, for appellants.

Classon, Whitcomb & Kuzenski, of Oconto, for respondents.

CROWNHART, J. (after stating the facts as above).

The appellants' counsel presents a rather ingenious argument and a rather elaborate brief, in which he contends in substance that the action of trespass was not maintainable, as the plaintiffs were not in possession at the time, and no action for waste lies, for the reason that waste requires a privity of estate, and there was no privity of estate until confirmation of the deed of the sale.

We have examined counsel's position with care, but we deem it unnecessary to elaborate upon the various propositions of law which he puts forth. W...