Case Name: Berntzon, Respondent, vs. Edwardsen and another, Appellants
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1915-06-01
Citations: 161 Wis. 180
Docket Number: 
Parties: Berntzon, Respondent, vs. Edwardsen and another, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 161
Pages: 180–182

Head Matter:
Berntzon, Respondent, vs. Edwardsen and another, Appellants.
May 6
June 1, 1915.
Vendor and purchaser af land: Waste: Injunction: Chattel mortgages: Sale: Failure to. file affidavit: Discharge.
A preliminary injunctional order restraining, at tlie suit oí the vendor, the vendees in a land contract from committing waste by cutting timber on the land, is affirmed. Baeues, J., dissents, on the ground that the vendees’ indebtedness for the purchase price had been discharged by the vendor’s failure to file the affidavit required by sec. 2316c, Stats., after a sale of property under a chattel mortgage which the vendor had taken as additional security for the payment of said price.
Appeal from ipi order of tbe circuit court for Marathón county: A. IT. Reid, Circuit Judge.
Affirmed.
Action to restrain commission of waste.
The complaint was to this effect: April 12, 1913, plaintiff contracted in writing to sell a particular farm and some live stock thereon for $4,500, of which $500 was paid down, the balance was agreed to be paid in specified instalments, and a promissory note conditioned accordingly was given. It was stipulated in the 'land contract that the vendee should not cut or remove any timber from the land in advance of at least $1,500 of the purchase price of the property being paid. In addition to retention of title to the land as security for the deferred payments, plaintiff took a chattel mortgage on the live stock and duly filed the same. Prior to May 8, 1914, plaintiff received payments on the note to the extent of $423.21. On that day under the terms of the chattel mortgage and without consent of defendants he caused the mortgaged chattels to be seized and sold. The net proceeds thereof were $434.54. He failed to comply with sec. 2316c, Stats. 1913. . December 1, 1914, defendants, without having paid $1,500 on the purchase price of the farm and live stock began cutting timber from the land with the intention of removing the same and refused to desist therefrom, though plaintiff de- mancled that they do so. They axe irresponsible and if permitted to breach the contract by committing waste upon tbe land plaintiff will be irremediably damaged.
Appropriate permanent relief was demanded and an interim injunction asked for.
Defendants answered admitting the claim as to their cutting timber with the intention to remove the .same from the land and without having paid in money the $1,500, as provided in the land contract, and insisted upon their having a right to do so because their purpose was to clear the land for cultivation and because the indebtedness covered by the chattel mortgage and land contract was extinguished by. failure of plaintiff to comply with the statute as to enforcing chattel mortgages.
On the pleadings and properly exhibiting the same as aforesaid the court granted the plaintiff the protection of a preliminary injunction restraining defendants pending the action. from cutting and removing timber from the land. They appealed.
The cause was submitted for the appellants on the brief of Brown, Pradi & Genrich, and for the respondent on that of Kreutzer, Bird, Bosenberry & OTconeshi.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
In this case, though the idea prevails that the order should be affirmed, there is such conflict of views as to the ground therefor, it is considered the general practice in such situation of pronouncing judgment of affirmance without any opinion being filed should be followed and such is the order.