Automatic Sprinkler Corp. of America v. Rosen

CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Writing for the CourtCROSBY
CitationAutomatic Sprinkler Corp. of America v. Rosen, 259 Mass. 319, 156 N.E. 693 (Mass. 1927)
Decision Date17 May 1927
PartiesAUTOMATIC SPRINKLER CORPORATION OF AMERICA v. ROSEN et al.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Report from Superior Court, Suffolk County; M. Morton, Judge.

Suit in equity by the Automatic Sprinkler Corporation of America against Ruth Rosen and others to enjoin defendants from preventing the removal of a sprinkler system installed in a building by plaintiff. Final decree was entered dismissing the bill, and case reported. Final decree dismissing the bill entered.

M. C. Taylor, of Boston, for plaintiff.

A. S. Allen, of Boston, for defendants.

CROSBY, J.

It is sought in this bill in equity to have the defendants enjoined from preventing the removal of a sprinkler system installed in a building by the plaintiff. At the trial the allegations of the bill were either proved or admitted; the trial judge ruled that the bill could not be maintained and ordered that a final decree be entered dismissing it. He reported the case to this court under G. L. c. 214, § 31.

The material facts are that in May, 1925, one Draffone and his wife were record owners of the premises in question; that on May 14, 1925, they entered into a written contract for conditional sale by the plaintiff to them of the sprinkler system which was to be installed in the building; that on May 28, 1925, notice of the contract was recorded in the Suffolk registry of deeds in accordance with G. L. c. 184, § 13; that on May 21, 1925, the Draffones executed to one Shain a mortgage of the premises, which was duly recorded in the registry of deeds on the same day but was not recorded elsewhere; that Shain had no knowledge of the plaintiff's contract except such as might be inferred from the recording of the notice; that afterwards the defendant Samuel Rosen became the record owner of the premises, the beneficial ownership therein being in one Richmond and one Levowich, neither of whom learned until December 25, 1925, that the sprinkler system had not been paid for. The conditional sale contract contained the following provision:

We retain title to the materials and equipment until payment in full therefor, with the right in case of any default on your part to enter the premises, turn off the water and remove said equipment or any part thereof, whether or not attached to the realty (for which purpose the material and equipment, however attached, is and shall at all times be, and be construed to be personal property, and as such wholly severable without material injury to the freehold). * * *’

In the mortgage it was recited:

‘This conveyance includes all stoves, ranges, furnaces, radiators, plumbing-goods, gas and electric fixtures, shades, screens, pipes, boilers, tanks, screen doors, awnings and storm doors and windows, which are now or may hereafter be on, wrought into or affixed to said premises and the grantor covenants that none of said fixtures or appurtenances have been or shall hereafter be purchased upon a contract of conditional sale.’

The sprinkler system not having been paid for, the plaintiff undertook to take possession of it, but the defendants, who were then in possession of the premises, refused to allow it to be removed.

If it be assumed that the sprinkler system is within the phrase ‘plumbing goods' as used in G. L. c. 184, § 13, or is ejusdem generis and comes within the words ‘or other personal property’ as construed in Babcock Davis Corp. v. Paine, 240 Mass. 438, 441, 134 N. E. 342, and J. H. Gerlach Co., Inc., v. Noyes, 241 Mass. 69, 73, 134 N. E. 612, the question remains whether notice of the contract of conditional sale was seasonably recorded against the holder of the Shain mortgage and those claiming thereunder. The statute provides that the conditional...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex
15 cases
  • Royal Paper Box Co. v. Munro & Church Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • November 29, 1933
    ...that the statutory basis had in fact been established. Sylvester v. Shea, 280 Mass. 508, 182 N. E. 916;Automatic Sprinkler Corp. of America v. Rosen, 259 Mass. 319, 323, 156 N. E. 693. The judge's conclusion that there was such a warranty of fitness is supported by the auditor's findings, a......
  • Gardner v. Buckley & Scott, Inc.
    • United States
    • Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • July 8, 1932
    ...R. A. 350. [1] The decision whether tank and burner had become realty was matter of fact as well as of law. Automatic Sprinkler Corp. v. Rosen, 259 Mass. 319, 323, 156 N. E. 693;Medford Trust Co. v. Priggen Steel Garage Co., 273 Mass. 349, 353, 174 N. E. 126. The finding of fact is binding ......
  • Grinnell Co. v. Gardner Trust Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • November 27, 1934
    ...are made from time to time the notice must be recorded not later than ten days after the first delivery. Automatic Sprinkler Corp. of America v. Rosen, 259 Mass. 319, 156 N. E. 693. Inferentially the notice may be recorded before later deliveries are made. But there is nothing in the phrase......
  • Medford Trust Co. v. Priggen Steel Garage Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • November 26, 1930
    ...Mass. 438, 441, 134 N. E. 342;J. H. Gerlach Co., Inc., v. Noyes, 241 Mass. 69, 73, 134 N. E. 612. See also Automatic Sprinkler Corp. v. Rosen, 259 Mass. 319, 322, 156 N. E. 693;American Soda Fountain Co. v. Parsons (C. C. A.) 32 F.(2d) 737, 739. Portable steel garages are not such property.......
  • Get Started for Free