Chapman v. the Union Mut. Life Ins. Co..

Decision Date31 March 1879
Citation4 Bradw. 29,4 Ill.App. 29
PartiesCASS CHAPMANv.THE UNION MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. S. M. MOORE, Judge, presiding. Opinion filed May 2, 1879.

Mr. F. A. WOODBURY, for appellant; that articles being originally chattels, the burden of proof is upon the party claiming the contrary to show that they have ceased to be chattels, cited Ewell on Fixtures, 32; Selwyn's Nisi Prius, 1058; Arnold v. Crowder, 81 Ill. 56.

Gas fixtures are chattels personal: Rogers et al. v. Coon, 40 Mo. 91; Vaughn v. Holdeman, 33 Pa. St. 522; Montague v. Dent, 10 Rich. 135.

The settees are not fixtures: Hunt v. Bullock, 23 Ill, 258; Rogers et al. v. Crow, 40 Mo. 91.

To change a chattel into a fixture, there must be actual annexation, application to the use and purpose of that portion of the realty with which it is connected, and an intention to make the annexation permanent: Teaf v. Hewitt, 10 Ohio St. 511; Swift v. Thompson, 9 Cal. 63; Murdock v. Gifford, 18 H. S. 28; Henry v. Smith, 1 Barb. 372; Vanderpool v. VanAllen, 10 Barb. 157; Godard v. Gould, 14 Barb. 662; Voorhies v. McGinnis, 46 Barb. 242; Childers v. Wright, 2 Cold. 850; Fullham v. Stearns, 30 Vt. 443; Bartlett v. Wood, 32 Vt. 372.

It must be such an annexation that if removed it would leave the principal structure incomplete and unfit for use, and would not itself be equally useful elsewhere: Beardsley v. Ontario Bank, 31 Barb. 682; Rogers et al. v. Crow, 40 Mo. 91.

The fact that the organ is so large that it must be taken down to remove it does not affect its character: Park v. Baker, 7 Allen, 187.

Because convenient or necessary to the use of the church does not make it a fixture: Hunt v. Bullock, 23 Ill. 325; Larry v. Gelbanny, 36 Mo. 320; Sturges v. Warner, 11 Vt. 433; Toffle v. Warreck, 8 Blackf. 111; Wade v. Johnson, 25 Ga. 33; Crenshaw v. Johnson, 8 Hen. & M. 22; Hancock v. Jordan, Ala. 498.

Mr. ROBERT B. KENDALL and Mr. E. R. BLISS, for appellee; that where the contest is between an execution creditor of the mortgagor and the mortgagee, it will be considered the same as if between mortgagor and mortgagee, cited Winslow v. Mer. Ins. Co. 4 Met. 310; Robinson v. Preswick, 3 Edw. Ch. 246; Main v. Schwarzwaelder, 4 E. D. Smith, 274; Strickland v. Parker, 54 Me. 264; Powell v. Munson, 3 Mason, 459.

And the rule is more favorable to a mortgagee than to a grantee: Longstaff v. Meagoe, 2 Adolph. & El. 167; Lathrop v. Blake, 3 Foster, 46.

The general rule is that all fixtures actually or constructively annexed to the freehold, pass to the mortgagee: Ewell on Fixtures, 275; Farmers Loan and Trust Co. v. St. Jo. R'y Co. 3 Dillon, 412; ex parte Barclay, 10 Eng. Rep. 601.

The rule is otherwise as between landlord and tenant, and as to trade fixtures: Place v. Fagg, 4 Man. & Ry, 277; Winn v. Ingleby, 5 Barn. & Ald. 625; Rice v. Adams, 4 Harr. 332; Green v. Phillips, 26 Gratt. 752.

As to what will constitute a fixture: Teaff v. Hewitt, 10 Ohio St. 511; Hill v. Wentworth, 28 Vt. 428; Lacey v. Gibbony, 36 Mo. 220; Dubois v. Kelley, 10 Barb. 496; Strickland v. Parker, 54 Me. 263; Parsons v. Copeland, 38 Me. 537.

Conveyance of the freehold with appurtenances carries with it all the essential parts: Farrar v. Steckpole, 6 Me. 154; Lathrop v. Blake, 23 N. H. 46; Voorhis v. Freeman, 2 W. & S. 116; Hoskin v. Woodward, 45 Pa. St. 42; Baldwin v. Walker, 21 Conn. 168.

The doctrine of physical annexation is expressly repudiated in some cases: Hill v. Sewald, 53 Pa. St. 271; Meigs' App'l, 62 Pa. St. 28; Patterson v. Del. Co. 70 Pa. St. 28; Gray v. Holdship, 17 S. & R. 413; Bryan v. Lawrence, 5 Jones L. 337; Latham v. Blakely, 70 N. C. 368; Hoyle v. Plattsburg R. R. Co. 51 Barb. 62; Palmer v. Forbes, 23 Ill. 301; Hunt v. Bullock, 23 Ill. 325.

Adaptation and necessity are distinguishing elements: Millikin v. Armstrong, 17 Ind. 456; Craine v. Brigham, 3 Stock, 29; Brennan v. Whitaker, 15 Ohio St. 446; Quimby v. M. C. & P. Co. 24 N. J. 260; Capun v. Peckham, 35 Conn. 88; Alvin Co. v. Gleason, 36 Conn. 87; 1 Jones on Mortgages, § 429; Reg. v. Lee, 1 Law Rep. 241.

Intention of the parties is of great importance: Dooley v. Crist, 25 Ill. 551; Kelley v. Austin, 46 Ill. 156; Ogden v. Stock, 34 Ill. 522; Smith v. Moore, 26 Ill. 393; Bishop v. Bishop, 11 N. Y. 123.

In cases of constructive annexation the article must be appropriate, and such as if removed would leave the principal thing incomplete and unfit for use: Snedeker v. Warring, 12 N. Y. 170; Wadleigh v. Janvrin, 41 N. H. 503; Strickland v. Parker, 54 Me. 263; Rogers v. Crow, 40 Mo. 91; Deyncourt v. Gregory, 3 Law & Eq. R. 382; Boon v. Orr, 4 G. Greene, 304; Seymour v. Watson, 5 Blackf. 555; Mitchell v. Billigsly, 17 Ala. 391; Beardsley v. Ontario Bank, 31 Barb. 632; Ogden v. Stock, 34 Ill. 522.

As to what have been held to be fixtures: Hannowels v. Eastwood, 5 Exch. 295; Walmsby v. Milen, 7 C. B. 15; Lathrop v. Blake, 3 Foster, 46; Dispatch Line v. Bellamy Co. 12 N. H. 233; Palmer v. Forbes, 23 Ill. 301; Hunt v. Bullock, 23 Ill. 325; Titus v. Ginheimer, 27 Ill. 426; Far. Loan and Trust Co. v. Hendrickson, 25 Barb. 484; State v. Nor. R. R. Co. 18 Mo. 193; P. W. & B. R. R. Co. v. Woelpper, 64 Pa. St. 366; Snedeker v. Warring, 12 N. Y. 160; Deyncourt v. Gregory, 3 Law & Eq. 382; Titus v. Mabee, 25 Ill. 257.

The settees and gas fixtures are a part of the building: Johnson v. Wiseman, 3 Met. 360; Stocks v. Booth, 1 Term R. 430; Kellogg v. Dickinson, 18 Vt. 266; First Baptist Soc. v. Grant, 59 Me. 245; Baptist Soc. v. Wetherell, 3 Paige, 296.

BAILEY, J.

In this case appellee filed its bill in chancery in the Superior Court of Cook county, to enjoin the sale on execution of certain property belonging to the Trustees of the Michigan Avenue Baptist Church, on which appellee claims a prior lien by virtue of a deed of trust. The bill alleges, in substance, that said trustees executed a deed of trust to one Edward Sercomb, as trustee, to secure the payment to appellee of a note for $53,000, conveying their church edifice and the land on which the same stands, together with the fixtures in said church. It is claimed by the bill that under the designation of fixtures the church organ, carpet, reading desk, pulpit chairs, chandeliers, settees, pew cushions, hall lamps, window blinds, furnaces and heating apparatus, were conveyed to the trustee, it being alleged that all of said articles of property are permanent fixtures, annexed to the realty or freehold, and intended as permanent accessories thereto. It is further alleged, that subsequent to the execution of the deed of trust, appellant recovered against said trustees a judgment for $1,416 and costs; that an execution had been issued upon said judgment and placed in the hands of the sheriff of Cook county, who had levied upon the property above enumerated, and was threatening to sell the same to satisfy said judgment. The cause was heard in the court below on bill, answer, replication and proofs, and a decree rendered, finding that the organ, gas fixtures, hall lamps and globes, settees, furnaces, registers and heating apparatus, were fixtures and attached to the realty, and that the lien of said judgment thereon was subordinate to the lien of said deed of trust, and perpetually enjoining the defendants from selling, removing, or otherwise disposing of, or interfering with, said property. Appellant, in his argument, expressly disclaims the right to hold, under his execution, the reading-desk, chandeliers, furnaces and registers. The only questions remaining are, whether at the time of the execution of the deed of trust, the settees, hall lamps and organ were so attached to the realty as to pass by the conveyance to the trustee, under the designation of fixtures.

The settees in question were those in use in the Sunday school rooms of the church, and were ordinary movable settees, not attached to the floor, a portion being half the length of the others, so as to be conveniently arranged in rectangular form for the use of the Sunday school classes. We are unable to perceive upon what principle furniture of this character could be held to constitute a part of the realty. There was an entire absence of physical annexation, either actual or constructive. It in no way differed in this respect from the ordinary movable furniture of a building. It is true, the apartments thus furnished could not be used for the purposes for which they were designed without the settees or other similar conveniences. The same may be said of every other unfurnished building. But the fact that furniture is indispensable to the proper uses of the building does not make the furniture so far a permanent accessory thereto as to impress upon it the character of a fixture.

The evidence shows that the hall lamps were gas-fixtures, attached to the building in the usual way. We are referred to several adjudged cases arising between vendor and vendee, in which it is held that gas chandeliers, lamps, brackets, etc., thus attached to the realty, are not fixtures so as to pass to the grantee under a conveyance, sheriff's sale, or mortgage foreclosure. Rogers et al. v. Crow et al. 40 Mo. 91; Vaughen v. Haldeman, 35 Penn. Stat. 522; Montague v. Dent, 10 Rich. (Law) 135. We are inclined to adopt the rule laid down in these cases, and to hold that the hall lamps were not a part of the realty.

Whether the organ is a fixture presents a question of much greater doubt and difficulty. The evidence shows that in the construction of the building an area was formed back of the pulpit, and elevated about two feet above it, embracing the choir gallery, baptistry, and what some of the witnesses term the organ loft. The organ stands in the center of a recess formed by an arch, the arch being forty feet broad, sixty feet high, and seven feet deep. The organ itself is a structure nineteen feet wide, eleven feet deep, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Progress Press Brick & Machine Co. v. Gratiot Brick & Quarry Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 12, 1899
    ...life to the whole. Thomas v. Davis, 76 Mo. 72; N. Y. Security Co. v. Saratoga Co., 34 N.Y.S. 890; Rogers v. Crow, 40 Mo. 95; Chapman v. Ins. Co., 4 Ill.App. 29; Oves v. Oglesby, 7 Watts 106; Shepard v. Blossom, 69 N.W. 221; Goodin v. Elleardsville Hall, 5 Mo.App. 289; Cooke v. McNeil, 49 Mo......
  • Frank Adam Electric Company v. Gottlieb
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • April 18, 1905
    ... ... St ... Louis Radiator Co. v. Carroll, 72 Mo.App. 315. (2) Gas ... v. Crow, 40 Mo. 91; McKeage v. Hanover Fire Ins ... Co., 81 N.Y. 38; Lawrence v. Kemp, 1 Duer ... Troescher, 70 ... N.Y.S. 764; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Allison, 107 ... F. 179; Vaughen v ... 522; ... Towne v. Fiske, 127 Mass. 125; Chapman v. Union ... Mut. Life Ins. Co., 4 Ill.App. 29; ... ...
  • Bush v. Havird
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • June 13, 1906
    ...(13 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 2d ed., 666, note 2; 19 Cyc. 1060, note 21; Hall v. Law Guarantee & Trust Soc., supra; Chapman v. Union Mutual Life Ins. Co., supra; Condit v. Goodwin, 89 N.Y.S. 827, 44 Misc. An agreement or an intention that the chattel shall remain personalty may be implied f......
  • Landfield Finance Co. v. Feinerman
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • January 6, 1972
    ...in determining intent; thus benches in a church as well as the chandeliers have been held to be personalty. Chapman v. Union Mutual Life Insurance Co., 4 Ill.App. 29 (1879). Tavern equipment has been specifically held to constitute personalty rather than fixtures. Davis Store Fixtures, Inc.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT