Shields v. Hansen
| Decision Date | 01 April 1930 |
| Parties | SHIELDS v. HANSEN. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Walworth County; Roscoe R. Luce, Judge. Reversed, with directions.
Action begun April 25, 1929; judgment entered June 26, 1929.
This is an action in equity to enjoin the defendant from removing a certain oil station and equipment from the leased premises of the plaintiff. The case was tried before the court, who made his findings of fact and conclusions of law, and entered judgment thereon in favor of the plaintiff. Defendant appealed.C. O. Bergener, of Racine, for appellant.
Charles E. Wilson and William A. Sheldon, both of Elkhorn, for respondent.
The issue litigated between the parties was whether or not the building and equipment for an oil station were trade fixtures, which the appellant had a right to remove from the premises upon the surrender of the premises under lease.
[1] The appellant contended that it was agreed by and between himself and the respondent, when he leased the premises, that the appellant was to be permitted to remove the building and equipment at the termination of the lease. The respondent denied this contention on the part of the appellant. The court found: “That at the time said defendant placed upon said premises said drives, building, tanks, concrete foundations, plumbing fixtures, and the pipes connecting said tanks to said pumps, said defendant did not intend to remove the same.”
It appears from the testimony that the parties entered into an oral agreement in March, 1922, whereby appellant was to occupy the premises in question for an oil station, and was to place thereon the necessary building and equipment, and to pay as rental for the premises $25 a month. The appellant contends that it was agreed that he was to prepare a written lease covering the agreement, which was to be executed by the parties. He testified that he did this and presented the written document to the respondent for signature; that after some time he saw the respondent about executing the lease, and the respondent informed him that he would not sign the lease for the reason that it contained a clause providing for a five-year renewal of the lease at its expiration; that the respondent made no other objection to the lease, and the appellant then said he would prepare a new lease leaving out the objectionable clause, but the respondent said it was not necessary, that his word was as good as his bond, and nothing further was done in the way of executing a written lease. Appellant occupied and continued in possession of the premises until 1926, at which time respondent demanded a higher rental, and negotiations were entered into between the parties for a renewal of the lease, and a written lease was executed for a three-year term at a rental of $50 per month.
The first lease which was presented to the respondent for execution contained a clause providing that the appellant might remove the building and equipment to be placed upon the premises under the lease, at the termination thereof. According to the appellant's testimony, such clause was in accordance with the oral agreement, and respondent took no exception to the lease on that account. The second lease, and the one which was executed in 1926, made no reference to the removal of the building and equipment.
The building cost about $1,500 exclusive of the equipment. It is a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Standard Oil Co. v. La Crosse Super Auto Serv., Inc.
...104 Wis. 186, 191, 80 N. W. 465, 466, 76 Am. St. Rep. 860. This is especially true with respect to trade fixtures. Shields v. Hansen, 201 Wis. 349, 230 N. W. 51;Zimmerman v. Treleven, 192 Wis. 214, 212 N. W. 266;Hanson v. Ryan, 185 Wis. 566, 201 N. W. 749, 36 A. L. R. 1516;Brobst v. Marty, ......
-
Nw. Loan & Trust Co. v. Topp Oil & Supply Co.
...involved we must hold that the general rule as stated is not applicable to the instant case. The appellant claims that Shields v. Hansen, 201 Wis. 349, 230 N. W. 51, rules the instant case. To this we cannot agree. While the improvement which the defendant in that case was permitted to remo......
-
Old Line Life Ins. Co. of Am. v. Hawn
...a liberal rule with respect to trade fixtures brought upon, installed in, or erected upon, leased premises by tenants. Shields v. Hansen, 201 Wis. 349, 230 N.W. 51, 52;Zimmerman v. Treleven, 192 Wis. 214, 212 N.W. 266;Hanson v. Ryan, 185 Wis. 566, 201 N.W. 749, 36 A.L.R. 1516;Brobst v. Mart......
-
Premonstratensian Fathers v. Badger Mut. Ins. Co.
...Loan Assoc., supra, 232 Wis. p. 444, 287 N.W. 739. See also Standard Oil Co. v. La Crosse Super Auto Service, supra; Shields v. Hansen (1930), 201 Wis. 349, 352, 230 N.W. 51.6 'The relative ease with which an object annexed to realty may be removed, while not the sole test, is often conside......