Page images
PDF
EPUB

serious injury to the freehold,1 and while he is still in possession of the premises as a tenant.2 But the time of removal may be extended by agreement.3

Vict., c. 25, s. 3; 38 & 39 Vict. c. 92, s. 53: 2 Smith's Leading Cas. 191. See also AGRICULTURAL FIXTURES, post.

A carriage-house, registers and slates, double glass doors, gas-pipes, iron sink, and cupboard were held to be permanent accessions to the freehold, and not removable by an outgoing tenant. Nor could the tenant prove a parol agreement with the landlord that was made at the time of executing a written lease of the premises, allowing him to remove all fixtures erected by him during the term. Appeal of Kenny, 12 Atl. Rep. (Pa.) 589.

1. Conrad v. Saginaw Min. Co., 54 Mich. 249; Cubbins v. Ayres, 4 Lea (Tenn.), 329; McDavid v. Wood, 5 Heisk. (Tenn.) 95; Ambs v. Hill, 10 Mo. Ap. 108: Allen z. Kennedy, 40 Ind. 142; 2 Taylor's Land. & Ten. § 550.

Lord Hardwicke laid down the rule that the principal thing 'shall not be destroyed by the accessory." Lawton v. Lawton, 3 Atk. 13. When the building is but an accessory to the fixtures, both are removable. Hence, when a building is erected over an engine for its protection, both can be removed as trade fixtures. Nor does it matter whether the building is wood or brick. Lawton v. Lawton, 3 Atk. 13; Foley v. Addenbrooke, 13 M. & W. 173.

2. Poole's Case, I Salk. 368; Lyde v. Russell, 1 B. & Ad. 394; Minshall v. Lloyd, 2 M. & W. 450; Elwes v. Mawe, 3 East, 38; Penton v. Robart, 2 East, 88; Youngblood v. Harris, 68 Ga. 630; Gaffield . Hapgood, 17 Pick. (Mass.) 192; Watriss v. First Nat. Bank, 124 Mass. 571; Hayes v. Doane, II N. J. E. 84; Torrey v. Burnett, 38 N. J. L. 457; Loughran v. Ross. 45 N. Y. 792; Van Ness v. Pacard, 2 Pet. (U. S.) 137.

Some conflict has arisen as to what is meant by the expression during the term." In Penton v. Robart, 2 East, 88, it was held that the tenant's right to remove his fixtures continued as long as he was in possession of the premises, although his term had expired. The case was decided upon the principle that as the tenant still retained possession of the premises the presumption that he had abandoned the fixtures to the landlord was rebutted

It was said in one case "that the rule to be collected from the several cases decided on this subject seems to be this: that the tenant's right to remove fixtures 8 C. of L.-4

continues during his original term and such further period of possession by him as he holds the premises under a right still to consider himself as tenant." Weeton v. Woodcock, 7 M. & W. 14. See also Loan and Discount Co. v. Drake, 6 C. B. 796. "If the tenant remain in possession after his term expires, and perform all the conditions of the lease, it amounts to a renewal of the lease from year to year, and I take it he will be entitled to remove fixtures during the year." Woodward, J., in Davis v. Moss, 38 Pa. St. 346. See also Kerr v. Kingsbury, 39 Mich. 150; Bircher v. Parker, 40 Mo. 118.

49

When the lessee holds over his term and the landlord secures judgment of restitution, which is not immediately enforced, the tenant in the mean time has no right to remove a small dwellinghouse erected by him during his term. Smith v. Park, 31 Minn. 70.

It has been held that when the tenancy expires on a day certain, and the tenant holds over against the will of the landlord, he forfeits his right to remove fixtures. Cromie v. Hoover, 40 Ind. 49; Allen v. Kennedy, 40 Ind. 142.

A tenant having mortgaged his fixtures during an unexpired term cannot, by a surrender of his lease before the end of the term, prevent the mortgage from entering upon the premises and removing them. Loan and Discount Co. v. Drake, 6 C. B 796. See also Saint v. Pilley, 10 Excheq. (L. R.) 137. Nor will the surrender of the lease by the tenant affect previously acquired rights of his subtenants. Baker v. Pratt. 15 Ill. 568; McKensie v. Lexington, 4 Dana (Ken.), 130.

Where the landlord agreed to sell trade fixtures for the benefit of the tenant, but failed to do so, it was held that the tenant was entitled to a reasonable time after surrendering the premises to remove the fixtures. Torrey v. Burnett, 38 N..J. L. 457.

If the landlord should sever his tenant's fixtures after the tenant had surrendered the premises, the latter cannot claim them as personal property. Stokoe v. Upton, 40 Mich. 581.

3. Cromie v. Hoover, 40 Ind. 49: Torrey v. Burnett, 38 N. J. L. 457; Josslyn v. McCabe, 46 Wis. 591; Saint v. Pilley, 10 Excheq. L. R. 137.

The license to remove fixtures after the expiration of the lease need not be in

598

5. Mortgagor and Mortgagee.-The general rule as to fixtures. between mortgagor and mortgagee is that all annexations to the realty pass by the mortgage to the mortgagee unless by express terms the mortgagor except them from the terms of the conveyance.1 Annexations made after the execution of the mortgage

writing. Torrey v. Burnett, 38 N. J. L. 457. But a license to leave certain fixtures on the premises after they have been surrendered cannot be construed as a license to re-enter and remove them. Josslyn v. McCabe, 46 Wis. 591.

1. Hitchman v. Walton, 4 M. & W. 409; Longstaff v. Meagoe, 2 A. & E. 167; Walmsley v. Moore, 7 C. B. (N. S.) 115; Ex parte Belcher, 4 Dea. & Ch. 703; Longbottom v. Berry, 5 Q. B. (L. R.) 123; Merritt v. Judd, 14 Cal. 60; Maples v. Millon, 31 Conn. 563; Pea v. Pea, 35 Ind. 387; Arnold v. Crowder, 81 Ill. 56; Winslow v. Merchants' Ins. Co., 4 Met. (Mass.) 306; Union Bank v. Emerson, 15 Mass. 159; Quimby . Manhattan, etc., Co., 24 N. J. E. 260; Wadleigh v. Janvrin, 41 N. H. 503-514; McRea v. Cent. Nat. Bank, 66 N. Y. 489; Hoskin 7. Woodward, 45 Pa. St. 42.

"As between mortgagor and mort gagee, when we have once established the facts that a thing appertains to the real estate, is necessary for its enjoyment, and is permanently attached to the freehold, its character as a fixture resulting to the benefit of the mortgagee is determined." Chancellor Williamson in Crane v. Brigham, 11 N. J. E. 29.

Chief Justice Shaw has very clearly stated the law on this branch of the subject in these words: “All buildings erected and fixtures placed on mortgaged premises by the mortgagor must be regarded as permanently annexed to the freehold; they go to enhance the value of the estate, and will therefore inure to the benefit of the mortgagee so far as they enhance the value of the equity of redemption, and thereby inure to the benefit of the mortgagor." Butler v. Page, 7 Met. (Mass.) 40. See also Hunt v. Hunt, 14 Pick. (Mass.) 374; Winslow v. Merchants' Ins. Co., 4 Met. (Mass.) 306.

As the mortgagor has the power to redeem his estate by the payment of the debt, there is no hardship connected with the strict enforcement of the commonlaw rule as to annexations to the freehold. Graeme v. Cullen, 23 Gratt. (Va.) 266-290. A mortgage upon a mill containing articles of machinery that have become fixtures will not be affected by a chattel mortgage given upon the machinery as personal property. Smith v. Waggoner, 50 Wis. 155. See also Adams 7. Beadle,

47 Iowa, 439; Keeler v. Keeler, 31 N. J.

E. 181.

Where the mortgagor united with his partner in erecting a small building on blocks, and which was used for the purpose of trade, it was held that it would not pass to the mortgagee under his mortgage. Kelly . Austin, 46 Ill. 156. Walker, J., in giving the opinion of the court, says: "Even a mortgagor may make temporary erections, if they are not attached to the freehold, and remove them before the mortgage is foreclosed, if he does not depreciate the value of the security as it existed when the mortgage was given.' Compare State Sav. Bank v. Kercheval, 65 Mo. 682.

[ocr errors]

Platform scales erected by the owner of land will pass to the mortgagee on foreclosure. Arnold v. Crowder, 81 Ill. 56. See also Bliss v. Whitney, 9 Allen (Mass.), 114.

It has been held that when a building is constructed for milling or manufacturing purposes, and is so employed, all the machinery and appliances used in connection with the business, whether attached in any way to the realty or not, become a part of the realty, and a mortgage simply of the land carries with it such machinery and appliances, even without any mention being made thereof. Farrar 7. Stackpole, 6 Me. 154; Winslow v. Merchants' Ins. Co., 4 Met. (Mass.) 306–314; Ege v. Kilee, 84 Pa. St. 333; Ottumwa Woollen Mill Co. v. Hawley, 44 Iowa, 57; Rochereau v. Bobb, 27 La. Ann. 657; Taylor v. Collins, 51 Wis. 123. Compare Despatch Line, etc., v. Bellamy Manfg. Co., 12 N. H. 205. But it seems that the largest number of authorities insist on a physi cal annexation to the realty to make machinery a part of the freehold. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co. v. Minneapolis E. & M. Works, 35 Minn. 543; McKim z. Mason, 3 Md. Chan. 186; Burnside 2. Twitchel, 43 N. H. 390. Mitchell, J. says: "While physical annexation is not indispensable, the adjudicated cases are almost universally opposed to the idea of mere loose machinery or utensils, even where it is the main agent or principal thing in prosecuting the business to which the realty is adapted, being considered a part of the realty for any purpose. To make it a fixture it must not merely be essential to the business of

are subject to the same rules as those made before.1 Nor does

the structure, but it must be attached to it in some way, or at least it must be mechanically fitted, so as in ordinary understanding to constitute it a part of the structure itself. It must be permanently attached to or the component part of some erection, structure, or machine which is attached to the freehold, and without which the erection, structure, or machine would be imperfect or incomplete." Wolford v. Baxter, 33 Minn. 12.

In Alabama it has been held that mere use of machinery in a cotton-mill is not enough, as between mortgagor and mortgagee, to subject it to the lien of the mortgage on the land. Rogers v. Prattville Mig. Co., I South. Rep. 643.

A steam engine and boiler used in a mill pass as a part of the realty by a mortgage of the estate by the owner. Perkins v. Swank, 43 Miss. 349; Sweetzer v. Jones, 35 Vt. 317; Harris v. Haynes, 34 Vt. 220; Scheifele v. Schmitz, 42 N. J. E. 700.

Looms, cards, spinning frames, etc., fastened to the floor in a cotton-mill to steady them, are not fixtures as between mortgagor and mortgagee. McKim v. Mason, 3 Md. Chan. 186. See also Swift v. Thompson, 9 Conn. 63; Murdock v. Gifford, 18 N. Y. 28; Fullam v. Stearns, 30 Vt. 443: Bartlett v. Wood, 32 Vt. 372. Compare Longbottom v. Berry, 5 Q. B. (L. R.) 123; Holland v. Hodgson, 7 C. P. (L. R.) 328; Ottumwa Woollen Mill Co. v. Hawley, 44 Iowa, 57.

It has been held that the law makes a distinction between machinery which furnishes the motive-power for a mill or factory and that which is propelled by the motive-power, the former being considered as realty and the latter as personalty. Case Mfg. Co. v. Garver (Ohio, 1886), 13 N. E. Rep. 493; Teaff v. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 512; Keeler v. Keeler, 31 N. J. E. 181; Murdock v. Gifford, 18 N. Y. 28; McConnell v. Blood, 123 Mass. 47. Compare Taylor v. Collins, 51 Wis. 123; Ottumwa Woollen Mill Co. v. Hawley, 44 Iowa, 57.

Machinery annexed in a substantial manner to a building is not a fixture unless there is such unity of title to the realty and machinery that a conveyance of the realty would of necessity convey the fixtures also. Adams v. Lee, 31 Mich. 440; Robertson 2. Corsett, 39 Mich. 777; Trappes 7 Hunter, 2 C. & M. 153; Young 7. Baxter. 55 Ind. 188. See also Globe Marble Mills Co. v. Quinn, 76 N. Y. 23.

Machinery annexed to real estate only

by belting will not as a matter of law pass to a mortgagee under the mortgage. Carpenter z. Walker, 140 Mass. 416; Balliett v. Humphreys, 78 Ind. 388.

Electric-light wires fastened to masts in the street and connected with the plant are a part of the machinery, and pass under a mortgage upon the lot upon which the plant is situated. Fechet v. Drake (Ariz.), 12 Pac. Rep. 694. See also Regina v. North Staffordshire R. Co., 3 E. & E. 392.

Bridges, rails, and other property, which become affixed to and a part of a railroad covered by a prior mortgage, will be held by the lien of such mortgage in favor of bona fide creditors as against any contract between the furnisher of the property and the railroad company, containing stipulations that the title to the property should not pass until paid for. Porter v. Pittsburg Steel Co., 122 U. S. 267; Dunham v. Railway Co., I Wal. (U. S.) 254; Fosdick v. Schall, 99 U. S. 235-251; Dillon v. Barnard, 21 Wal. 430; Hunt v. Bay State Iron Co., 97 Mass. 279.

When a chattel mortgage is given on machinery, which is afterwards attached to the mill in such a way as to be easily removed without injury to the freehold, it will be valid against a prior real-estate mortgage. First Nat. Bank v. Elmore, 52 Iowa, 541; Eaves v. Estes, 10 Kan. 314; Tifft v. Horton, 53 N. Y. 377; Henry v. Von. Branstein, 12 Daly (N. Y.), 480; Miller v. Wilson, 33 N. W. Rep. 128; Burrill v. S. N. Wilcox Lum. Co., 32 N. W. Rep. 824; Keeler v. Keeler, 31 N. J. E. 181. See also Blancke v. Rogers, 26 N. J. E. 563. Compare Voorhees v. McGinnis, 48 N. Y. 278; Pierce v. George, 108 Mass. 78.

A mortgage of a factory eo nomine includes ex vi termini all machinery and other articles essential to the factory. Delaware, etc., R. Co. v. Oxford Iron Co., 36 N. J. E. 452. See also Voorhis v. Freeman, 2 W. & S. (Pa.) 116; Hoskin v. Woodward. 45 Pa. St. 42; Shelton v. Ficklin, 32 Grattan (Va.), 727.

A mortgagee may consent to a fixture remaining personal property, in which case the right of removal is not lost. Eaves 7. Estes. 10 Kan. 314; Tibbetts v. Moore, 23 Cal. 208; Wight 7. Gray. 73 Me. 297: Foster z. Prentiss, 75 Me. 279: Bartholomew 7. Hamilton, 105 Mass. 239: Tifft 7. Horton, 53 N. Y. 377: Cullers . James, 66 Tex. 494: Harkey v. Cane (Tex.), 6 S. W. Rep. 637.

1. 1. Washburn Real Prop. (5th Ed.),

the favor generally extended to trade fixtures apply when the question arises between mortgagor and mortgagee. The inten

25 Jones Mort. sect. 436; Winslow v. Merchants' Ins. Co., 4 Met. (Mass.) 306; Lynde v. Rowe, 12 Allen (Mass.), 100; Corliss v. McLagin, 29 Me. 115; Wight v. Gray, 73 Me. 297; State Bank 7. Kerchival, 65 Mo. 682; Coleman 7. Stearns Mfg. Co., 38 Mich. 30; Burnside v. Twitchell, 43 N. H. 390; Blake v. Respass, 77 N. Car. 193; Bond v. Cope, 71 N. Car. 97; Snedeker v. Warring, 12 N. Y. 170; Wood v. Whelen, 93 Ill. 153; Sweetzer v. Jones, 35 Vt. 317; Tillman v. DeLacy, 80 Ala. 103; Roberts v. Dauphin Dep. Bank, 19 Pa. St. 71; McKim v. Mason, 3 Md. Ch. 186; Ex parte Belcher, Dea. & Ch. 703; Cullewick v. Swindell, 3 Eq. Cas. (L. R.) 249; Walmsley v. Milne, 7 C. B. (N. S.) 115; Ex parte Cotton, 2 M. D. & D. 725. The ground on which it has been held that fixtures erected after the mortgage passed with the land is, that as the mortgagee may suffer by the depreciation of the property, arising from fluctuation in value, from accident, and from neglect, so he may be benefited by its apprecia. tion, whether the same arises from the proper cultivation and improvement of the property, or from any other cause. Roberts v. Dauphin Dep. Bank, 19 Pa. St. 71.

If a mortgagor lease the mortgaged premises, and the tenant erect fixtures with an understanding with the mortgagor that they will be removable at the end of the term, they become a part of the realty, and cannot be removed by the tenant. Frankland v. Moulton, 5 Wis. 1; Lynde v. Rowe, 12 Allen (Mass.), 100. See also Hunt v. Bay State Iron Co., 97 Mass. 279. Compare Tifft v. Horton, 53 N. Y. 377; Sanders v. Davis, 15 Q. B. D. 218.

Machinery was placed in a building by the owner of the lot, with the understand ing that the owner of the machinery was to take a lease of the premises, but before the lease was executed, the owner of the land gave a mortgage upon the lot, to one who saw the machine on the premises, and was ignorant of the agreement between the owner of it and the owner of the premises. Held, that the machinery passed by the mortgage. Southbridge Sav. Bank v. Stevens Tool Co., 130 Mass. 547. See also Hunt v. Bay State Iron Co., 97 Mass. 279.

If, after the execution of a mortgage on real estate, fixtures are added by a tenant at will of the mortgagor, his right to remove them, after an entry by the mort

gagee for the purpose of foreclosure must be determined by the rule which prevails as between mortgagor and mortgagee, and not that which prevails between landlord and tenant. Lynde v. Rowe, 12 Allen (Mass.), 100; Wight v. Gray, 73 Me. 297.

Where machinery was bought by a mortgagor and placed in a building after the mortgage was given, the vendor of the machinery cannot claim it under a bill of sale with condition that title should revert to the vendor if the note given to secure the price of the machinery were not paid, but it passes under the mortgage to the mortgagee. Thompson v. Vinton, 121 Mass. 139; Frankland v. Moulton, Wis. 1; Roddy v. Brick, 42 N. J. E. 128; Tibbetts 7. Moore, 23 Cal. 208; Hamilton v. Huntley, 78 Ind. 521; s. c., 41 Am. Rep. 593; Bass Foundry v. Gallentine, 99 Ind, 525; Davenport v. Shants, 43 Vt. 546. Compare Tifft v. Horton, 53 N. Y. 377. In this case it was held that a steam-engine and boiler put up in an elevator, upon which machinery a chattel mortgage was given before the delivery of it, containing a clause providing that the property should remain personal property until paid for, without reference to the manner in which it was attached to the real estate, did not pass under a mortgage upon the real

estate.

Nor will an agreement between vendor and vendee of machinery which becomes fixtures by being attached to the freehold bind a subsequent mortgagee without notice of the agreement, Southbridge Savings Bank v. Exeter Machine Works, 127 Mass. 542; Davenport v. Shants, 43 Vt. 546.

Buildings erected by a mortgagor after foreclosure of the mortgage pass with the land. Guernsey v. Wilson, 134 Mass. 482. See also Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Dowden, 3 Atl. Rep. 351. Compare Henry v. Von Brandenstein, 12 Daly (N. Y.) 480.

When the chattel is annexed after giving the mortgage, and is of doubtful character, there must be stronger evidence of intention to make a permanent accession to the freehold than if it were annexed prior to or at the time of giving the mortgage. Tillman v. De Lacy, So Ala. 103; Clore v. Lambert, 78 Ky. 224.

1. Merritt v. Judd, 14 Cal. 60; Burnside . Twitchell, 43 N. H. 390; Wight v. Gray, 73 Me. 297; Winslow v. Merchants' Ins. Co., Met. (Mass.) 306;

tion of the mortgagor in making the annexations is to be closely considered in determining whether a fixture erected by him is removable or not. The same rules as to fixtures apply between mortgagor and mortgagee as between heir and executor and between vendor and vendee.2

Childress v. Wright, 2 Coldw. (Tenn.) 350; Mathews v. Fraser, 2 K. & T. 536; Longbottom. Berry, 5. Q.B. (L.R.) 123; Walmsley v. Milne, 7 C. B. (N. S.) 115; Cullwick v. Swindell, 3 Eq. Cas. (L. R.) 249; Climie v. Wood, 3 Ex. (L. R.) 257.

In Climie v. Wood, 3 Ex. (L. R.) 257, Kelly, C. B., says: "There have been several cases where the courts have decided that upon the true construction of the mortgage deeds, trade fixtures were removable by the mortgagor, but not one to show that such right exists without a special provision. A mortgage is a pledge for a debt, and it is not unreasonable, if a fixture be annexed to land at the time of a mortgage, or if the mortgagor in possession afterwards annexes a fixture to it, that the fixtures shall be deemed an additional security for the debt, whether it be a trade fixture or a fixture of any other kind. It has already been observed that no authority has been cited to show that trade fixtures may be removed by the mortgagor, but there are several to the contrary.'

[ocr errors]

1. Quimby v. Manhattan, etc., Co., 24 N. J. E. 260; Rogers v. Brokaw, 25 N. J. E., 496; Jones v. Ramsey, 3 Ill. Ap. 303; Robertson v. Corsett, 39 Mich. 777; Arnold v. Crowder, 81 Ill. 56. Judge Dillon, in discussing the law of fixtures, says: "Whoever traces the history of the growth and development of the law on the subject, will see that the constant tendency of the judicial mind has been towards the emphasizing the importance of intention, actual or presumed, from the character, relations, and purposes of the property as an element of controlling and frequently decisive importance. 4 Cent. L. Jour. 22. And in one case the court says: "If the intention was to render the improvement permanent when erected, there can be no doubt that it became part of the freehold, and no subsequent change of intention changed its character to that of personal property. Dooley v. Crist. 25 Ill. 551.

Intent alone will not convert a chattel into a fixture. Walford v. Baxter, 33 Minn. 12; Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Minn. E. & M. Works, 35 Minn. 543; Theilman v. Carr, 75 Ill. 385; Arnold v. Crowder, 81 Ill. 56; Treadway v. Sharon. 7 Nev. 37.

It is not the intention to make a thing annexed to or placed upon the freehold personal property that alters its legal character as a fixture, but the intention to make a permanent or temporary an nexation. Rogers v. Brokaw, 25 N. J. E. 496.

Erections made by the owner of real estate are presumed to be permanent. Arnold v. Crowder, 81 Ill. 56; Winslow 7. Merchants' Ins. Co., 4 Met. (Mass.) 306.

Machinery may remain chattels for all purposes, even though physically attached to the freehold by the owner, if the mode of attachment indicates that it is merely to steady it for its more convenient use, and not to make it an adjunct of the building or soil. Carpenter v. Walker, 140 Mass. 416; Hubbell v. East Cambridge Bank, 132 Mass. 447; McGuire v. Park, 140 Mass. 21.

The fact that annexations to the freehold are called chattels in a deed to the mortgagor does not affect the mortgagee's right to them as fixtures. Quimby v. Manhattan, etc., Co.. 24 N. J. E. 260. See also Rogers v. Brokaw, 25 N. J. E. 496; Lyle v. Palmer, 42 Mich. 314. Nor does excepting fixtures from the terms of a mortgage make them personalty. Davis v. Eastham, 81 Ken. 116.

An owner of machinery and other things in the nature of fixtures, which may be easily severed from the realty, may treat them as chattels, and by the execution of a chattel mortgage upon them estop himself from asserting as against the mortgagee that they are real estate, and the mortgagee may put his mortgage in evidence to show his right to the possession of the articles mortgaged, without thereby putting the title to real estate in issue. Corcoran v. Webster, 50 Wis. 125; Smith v. Benson, I Hill (N. Y.), 176.

2. Arnold v. Crowder, 81 Ill. 56: Burnside v. Twitchell, 43 N. H., 390: Wadleigh v. Janurin. 41 N. H., 503; Thomas 7. Davis, 76 Mo. 42; Davidson 7. Westchester Gaslight Co., 99 N. Y. 558; Montague 7. Dent. 10 Rich. (S. Car.) 135; Johnson v. Wiseman, 4 Met. (Ky.) 357; Weathersby v. Sleeper, 42 Miss. 732.

« PreviousContinue »