Court Opinion

ID: 9855131
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:20:02.443503+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:41.538491
License: Public Domain

Robert W. Hansen, J.
(dissenting). While turkeys are not migratory birds, a lawsuit involving a flock of turkeys can have several roosting places in this state. Where breach of a contract of sale is at issue, whether or not it concerns turkeys, this court has held that venue may properly lie in the county where:
(1) The contract was made,1
(2) The contract was breached,2 or
(3) Payment is to be made.3
Paragraph 5 of plaintiff’s complaint alleged that the defendant processing corporation agreed to act as *238broker to sell the processed birds and “in the absence of being able to obtain or obtaining a third-party purchaser,” agreed to purchase the flock at the then current market price. If this were simply a contract to purchase at the market price, then the action for breach could be brought in Wood county which is conceded to be the place where payments were to be made.
Does the dual nature of the agreement, as alleged in paragraph 5, change the basic nature of the contract or the basis of an action for its breach? Whether the defendant corporation sold or itself bought the turkeys, payment to the plaintiff for his flock was required. In either event, the fact of payment or nonpayment remains at least “some part” of the cause of action and that is the statutory test as to proper place of trial under sec. 261.01 (6), Stats.
However, the majority of the court distinguishes the nonpayment cases by concluding that here the “crux of the complaint” is the defendant’s failure to obtain a third-party purchaser and finding that nonpayment is not an issue in this case.
“It is difficult to understand how . . . [paragraph 5 of the complaint] transforms the case into a nonpayment situation” the majority opinion states. Even if paragraph 5 is interpreted to exclude the issue of nonpayment, paragraphs 16 and 17 of the complaint keep it in.
Paragraph 16 alleges that the defendant corporation did actually sell portions of the plaintiff’s flock of turkeys and did receive funds related to such sale.
Paragraph 17 alleges that the defendant did retain the use of funds realized from said sales and did utilize an undetermined amount of said funds for the benefit of defendant corporation.
In these two paragraphs we have no allegation that the defendant corporation failed to look for and find a third-party purchaser. Instead the allegation is that the defendant corporation did:
*239(1) Find a third-party purchaser,
(2) Did sell a portion of the flock,
(3) Did receive moneys from the sale,
(4) Did retain and utilize such proceeds of said sale for its own benefit.
If this does not raise a sharp issue as to nonpayment by defendant of moneys due the plaintiff under the contract, it is difficult to understand what allegation would.
The trial judge held that Wood county was a proper place of trial in this action and that the case need not be crated up and shipped down, as were the turkeys, to Jefferson county for trial. His denial of the motion for change of venue should be affirmed.
I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice Hanley joins in this dissent.

 State ex rel. Webster Mfg. Co. v. Reid (1922), 177 Wis. 612, 188 N. W. 67.

 State ex rel. Webster Mfg. Co. v. Risjord (1930), 201 Wis. 26, 229 N. W. 61.

 State ex rel. Flambeau River Lumber Co. v. Reid (1932), 201 Wis. 478, 240 N. W. 149; State ex rel. Connor Lumber & Land Co. v. Circuit Court (1933), 213 Wis. 141, 250 N. W. 763.