Brief of appellant contains no assignment of errors as required by Rule 10, and after a very brief
It is contended by appellant that under the provisions of sub. (1), sec. 1038, Stats., the property exempt from taxation is “that owned exclusively by the United States or by this state,” and that the property in quеstion was not exclusively that of the United States but that the Company had some interest therein. When the facts and circumstances which surrounded the parties at the time these contracts were еntered into are considered, the purpose of those provisions of the contrаct which attempt to pass title to the property and vessels under construction is plаin. The interest to be served was a public interest in its widest application. The fate of thе whole contest in which the world was then engaged depended upon shipping, and every nаtion engaged in the war was endeavoring by all possible means to construct in the shortest possible space of time vessels to supply their respective needs. The cóntract shows that the greatest care was exercised on behalf of the Fleet Corporation and the officers representing the government of the United States to retain at all times complete control over vessel-building operations. If it is possible to use language which is plain and definite passing the title to partially constructed vessels and the materials on the premises designed therefor, it must be conceded that the language of the cоntract in this case does it. Indeed it is very doubtful if under the terms of the contract the title to any considerable part of the materials wrought into these vessels was ever in tht-Company. The materials wеre bought under specifications prepared and delivered to the companies fabricating the same directly by the government and paid for, and when delivered under the
“It is undoubtedly true that the mere facts that the vessel is to be paid for in instalments as the work progresses, and to be built under the supеrintendence of a government inspector, who had power to reject or approve the materials, will not of themselves work the transfer of the title of a vessel to bе constructed, in advance of its completion. But it is equally well settled that if the contraсt is such as to clearly express the intention of the parties that the'builder shall sell and the purchaser shall buy the ship before its completion, and at the different stages of its progress, and this purpose is expressed in the words of the contract, it is binding and effectual in law to pass the title.”
The fact that the contract contained other clauses relating to insurance, the duty of the Company to restore the property in case of destruction by fire, and the рayment of valid taxes, if any, does not operate to modify the clear intent of the parties as expressed in the language of the contract relating to the time when the titlе shall pass.
By the clause of the contract referred to the title to the vessels pаssed to and was in the United States exclusively. This applies not only to- the vessels wholly or partially completed, but tO' all materials for the furtherance of the work under the contract. It was therefore by law exempt from taxation.
Many other questions are discussed by counsel which we find it unnecessary to consider in the view which we take of this case. It is undisputed that the mаterial was furnished and the vessels constructed under the contract containing the
By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.