General Heat & Appliance Co. v. Goodwin
| Court | Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
| Citation | General Heat & Appliance Co. v. Goodwin, 316 Mass. 3, 54 N.E.2d 676 (Mass. 1944) |
| Decision Date | 26 April 1944 |
| Parties | GENERAL HEAT AND APPLIANCE COMPANY v. GEORGE E. GOODWIN& others. |
February 1, 1944.
Present: FIELD, C.
J., QUA, RONAN & WILKINS, JJ.
Mortgage, Of real estate: what property covered, personalty attached to mortgaged premises, heating apparatus, Sale, Conditional. Real Property, Attachment of personalty, Heating apparatus. Personal Property, Attachment to real estate, Heating apparatus. Real or Personal Property. Equity Pleading and Practice, Decree, Inferences, Appeal.
In a suit in equity by the vendor in a conditional sale of heating apparatus in a building against the vendee and one who had become the owner of the building through purchase at a sale in foreclosure of a mortgage, an "interlocutory decree" establishing the vendee's indebtedness to the vendor, the title of the vendor to the apparatus, and his right to repossess and resell it if such indebtedness were not paid within a specified time, was a final decree as against the defendant owner, although it also contained provisions contemplating the possibility of further decrees in the event of a resale by the vendor.
On appeal in a suit in equity heard on a statement of agreed facts, this court draws the proper inferences from such facts without regard to inferences drawn by the trial judge.
On facts showing in detail the nature of a compact, standard type combination oil burner and air conditioner and the method of its installation in a dwelling house as the central and only heating apparatus thereof, the proper inference was that, as between one who sold the apparatus to the owner of the premises on conditional sale and a prior mortgagee of the premises, the apparatus became part of the realty although it was capable of being easily removed therefrom without injury to itself or the premises and of being used in other dwellings; and the vendor, as against the mortgagee, was not entitled to repossess the apparatus upon default by the vendee.
BILL IN EQUITY filed in the Superior Court on February 27, 1942. The case was heard by Spalding, J. In this court it was submitted on briefs.
J. F. Connolly, for the defendant Hyde. E. L. Schwartz, for the plaintiff.
This is a suit in equity under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 214, Section 3 (1), by a vendor to compel the redelivery of a "Delco-Heat Conditionair" sold and delivered under a contract of conditional sale to the defendant Goodwin at his residence at 16 Radford Lane, Dorchester, and to recover damages. Other parties defendant are the Merchants Co-operative Bank, holder of a first mortgage on the premises, and one Hyde, present owner through the foreclosure by sale of a second mortgage of which he had been the assignee. The defendant Goodwin defaulted, and the bill of complaint was taken pro confesso as against him. The case was tried before a judge on a statement of agreed facts, and from an "interlocutory decree" the defendant Hyde appealed.
The plaintiff has filed a motion that the appeal be dismissed as prematurely entered. This motion must be denied. The decree declared that the plaintiff had title to the "Conditionair" and was entitled to possession; established the indebtedness of Goodwin to the plaintiff; provided that upon payment within twenty-one days the plaintiff should give to Goodwin a bill of sale, or, in the alternative, that if payment were not made, Goodwin should deliver to the plaintiff, or permit the plaintiff to repossess, the "Conditionair," without waiver of the indebtedness, and with the right of resale made an order, not affecting Hyde, for a small payment by the plaintiff to the bank in the event of repossession; set forth that none of the defendants was entitled to damages against the plaintiff; "perpetually restrained and enjoined" all defendants from removing, encumbering, or disposing of the "Conditionair" and from interfering with its removal by the plaintiff so long as the indebtedness remained unsatisfied; required the plaintiff, upon making a sale under Section 13F, inserted in G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 255 by St. 1939, c. 509, Section 2, to file a report in court; and continued the suit "for such further decrees as may be necessary in the premises."
The decree, although contemplating the possibility of supplemental decrees in the event that a sale should be made, conclusively determined the matters in issue. By it Hyde was deprived, in favor of the plaintiff, of his asserted title and possession, subject only to a condition subsequent, which might relieve him from the consequences of failure in the controversy, in the contingency of payment of the indebtedness to the plaintiff by Goodwin, who had never been an active participant in the litigation. The bank, which did not contend that the "Conditionair" was covered by the first mortgage, had merely sought an order for restoration of the premises should the plaintiff succeed in the prayer for its return. The decree, in spite of its title, was a final decree, and the appeal is rightly before us. Kingsley v. Fall River, 280 Mass. 395 , 399-400. Commissioner of Insurance v. Broad Street Mutual Casualty Ins. Co. 306 Mass. 362, 364-365. Seder v. Kozlowski, 311 Mass. 30 , 33.
The statement of agreed facts shows the course of events to have been as follows: On March 14, 1941, Goodwin executed a second mortgage of the real estate to one Rogers. The mortgage, recorded on the same day, covered, "Also, insofar as the same are, or can by agreement of the parties be made, a part of the realty, all of the following articles now or hereafter on the above described premises or used therewith: -- plumbing, heating, -- ventilating and air conditioning apparatus and equipment, -- motors --, and other fixtures whether or not included in the foregoing enumeration." On March 20 the plaintiff by a conditional sale contract sold to Goodwin the "Conditionair," which immediately thereafter was placed in the basement and apparently constituted the only means of heating the house. The contract, no notice of which was recorded, provided for payment of $860.76 in thirty-six monthly instalments and contained the following: On June 25 Rogers assigned his mortgage to Hyde. This assignment was recorded on June 26. On October 22 Hyde made a peaceable entry, and thereafter foreclosed by sale at public auction, and bought in subject to the first mortgage and taxes. The foreclosure deed was duly recorded. On January 27, 1942, Hyde for the first time learned of the conditional sale contract, no payments under which had been made.
The premises, a wooden framed, seven room, single family dwelling house about forty years old, were originally designed for hot air heat. There were ducts for the transmission of air leading from a hot air furnace along the basement ceiling, to which they were fastened by screws and bolts or suspended by wire loops, and thence continuing up through the walls and opening out into registers and grilles. The furnace, originally a coal burner, had been converted to an oil burner. The premises could be heated by any mechanism which heated and circulated air.
The "Conditionair" was a combination oil burner and winter air conditioner, wholly contained in a thin walled metal cabinet. It was a patented, standard type, one of a series of models of oil burners manufactured by General Motors Sales Corporation, and was a compact unit thirty by fifty-three by forty-five inches weighing seven hundred thirty pounds, capable of being disassembled into easily handled parts and removed without injury to itself or the real estate through doors or existing openings in the building. It consisted in part of a heating transfer unit in three parts, twin side chambers, placed on either side of a central combustion chamber, which contains a heat transmitter; as well as a...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting