DeGraffenreid v. Scruggs

• Decision Date: 30 April 1844
• Citation: 23 Tenn. 451
• Parties: DEGRAFFENREID v. SCRUGGS.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

23 Tenn. 451

DEGRAFFENREID

v.SCRUGGS.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

April, 1844.

Scruggs sued Degraffenreid in trover, in the circuit court of Fayette, to recover the value of a cotton gin. Plea, not guilty and issue.

It came on to be tried at the December term, 1843, Dunlap, judge, presiding.

It appeared that Shelton was the owner of 700 acres of land lying in Fayette county, a cotton farm; that, for the purpose of ginning the cotton made thereupon, he had erected a cotton gin; that the house was built upon blocks, and the gin fastened to the house by nails and braces. Shelton conveyed the 700 acres, with hereditaments and appurtenances, by deed in trust to Nelson, to secure the payment of certain debts. This deed was made on the 27th day of April, 1842. On the 22d day of December, 1842, Shelton sold and conveyed the cotton gin to Scruggs, in trust, for the benefit of other creditors. On the 26th day of January, 1843, Nelson sold the land and appurtenances at public auction to Degraffenreid, and conveyed the same to him.

Scruggs demanded the cotton gin of Degraffenreid, which he refused to deliver.

The judge charged the jury that, if the gin could be delivered and removed without serious injury to the land or gin, it could not pass under the deed to Nelson; but if, on the contrary, the gin could not be severed and removed from the premises without injury to the land or gin, they would find for the defendant.

The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $121. A motion for a new trial was made and overruled, and judgment rendered, from which the defendant appealed in error.

Searcy, for plaintiff in error. Questions respecting the right to fixtures arise principally between three classes of persons.

1st. Between the executor and the heir; and here the rule is more rigorous in favor of the inheritance and against the right to consider as personal chattels anything which has been affixed to the freehold.

2d. Between the executor of tenants for life and the remainder-man or reversioner. Here the right to fixtures is considered more favorable.

3d. Between landlord and tenant; and here the greatest latitude and indulgence is given to the tenant.

See 2 Kent, 3d ed., M, page 345; 5th Am. ed., 2 Starkie, T, page 908, note s.

The strict rule as to fixtures that applies between executor and heir applies equally as between vendor and vendee. 2 Kent, 3d ed., top page, 345; Holmes v. Temple, 20 John., 30; 6 Conn., 665; 3 Mason, 450; 6 Greenl., 154. And so the mortgagee. 1 Ashe, 175; 15 Mass., 169; 2 Kent, 3d ed., page 345, note.

In the case of Elwes v. Man, 3 East, 38, all the English cases are reviewed by the court; and there the distinction is taken and shown by the court to run through all the cases reviewed, between annexations to the freehold for the purposes of trade and manufactories, and those for agriculture; and the right of the tenant to remove was strong in the one case and not in the other. It was held that an agricultural tenant who had erected fixtures for the convenient occupation of his farm was not entitled to remove them. When the erections had been for the benefit of trade or manufactures, the right to remove would have been undoubted; and this was a case between landlord and tenant, where the greatest relaxation is given to the rule.

The old rule that whatever was annexed to the freehold could never again be removed without the consent of the owner of the inheritance was relaxed solely for the benefit of trade and manufactures; and in course of time, as between landlord and tenant, it was further relaxed; and matters merely ornamental and of domestic convenience were excepted.

These are only exceptions to the general rule; and in the case of Buchland v. Butterfield, 6 E. C. L. R., 17, the court says that, being exceptions only, they ought to be fairly considered, but not extended.

These exceptions have not been extended by the American cases. The case of Van Ness v. Picard, in 2 Pet., 137, was placed on the ground that the fixtures were erected for the purpose of trade. And the case of Holmes v. Temple, 20 John., 29, where a tenant was allowed to remove a cider mill, was decided on the same principle that governed Lord Ch. B. Comyn, who held that a tenant could remove a cider-mill because it was a mixed case between enjoying the profits of the land and carrying on a species of trade,...