O'Donnell v. Burroughs
| Decision Date | 20 October 1893 |
| Citation | 56 N.W. 579,55 Minn. 91 |
| Parties | O'DONNELL v. BURROUGHS. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
(Syllabus by the Court.)
1. The owners of a village lot, with the consent of the village council, set platform weighing scales in the street opposite the lot, upon a brick foundation let down into the ground, the upper side of the scales being even with the surface of the ground. Held, not part of the realty.
2. The owners left the scales on the land after the foreclosure of a mortgage of the real estate became absolute. Held that, as between the holder of the mortgage title and any one not having acquired the title to the scales from the original owners, the former is entitled to the possession and use of the scales.
Appeal from district court, Sibley county; Cadwell, Judge.
Action by William O'Donnell against James Burroughs to determine the title and ownership to platform scales erected on a public street. Defendant had judgment, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
W. H. Leeman, for appellant.
P. W. Morrison, for respondent.
Whether the platform scales are to be regarded as part of the realty or as personal property, it is impossible to sustain the decision of the court below that the title to them is in the defendant. If real estate, the title passed under the mortgage to Welch and the foreclosure thereof, and plaintiff has that title. The mortgage was prior to the conveyance (by the mortgagors) to McLaughlin, under which alone the latter could claim title to the scales. If they were personal property, they did not pass to him by the conveyance of the real estate, and he could not transfer them to his assignee, under whom defendant claims. The facts stipulated, especially, that the scales were set up in the street opposite the lot of the parties setting them up; that the parties had to get, and did get, permission from the village council to set them there, and that consequently they could remain there only during and by the sufferance of the council,-are inconsistent with an intent to annex them permanently to the soil, so as to make them part of it. They were to be regarded as set up temporarily only, to be removed whenever the council should withdraw its permission. They did not become part of the real estate. But, although not a part of the realty, so that the title of the original owners could pass to plaintiff under the mortgage and foreclosure, and although the title of the original owners may still remain in them, yet...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Young v. Chandler
...temporary in its purpose and not part of the realty. Berwick v. Fletcher, 41 Mich. 625, 3 N. W. 162, 32 Am. Rep. 170; O'Donnell v. Burroughs, 55 Minn. 91, 56 N. W. 579; Meig's Appeal, 62 Pa. 28, 1 Am. Rep. 372; Andrews v. Auditor, 28 Grat. (Va.) 115. Annexations with the consent of the owne......
-
Thomson v. Smith
...inquiry, as the owner of that made no objection. As well say a house a few inches over the line is not real estate. In O'Donnell v. Burroughs (Minn.) 56 N. W. 579, relied on by the appellee, the scales were in the street. But see McGorrisk v. Dwyer, 78 Iowa, 279, 43 N. W. 215, 5 L. R. A. 59......
-
McCoun v. Drews
...to this inquiry, as the owner of that made no objection. As well say a house a few inches over the line is not real estate. In O'Donnell v. Burroughs , 56 N.W. 579, relied on by the appellee, the were in the street." These cases have been followed and the rules announced applied in many oth......
-
Thomson v. Smith
... ... of that made no objection. As well say a house a few inches ... over the line is not real estate. In O'Donnell v ... Burroughs, 55 Minn. 91 (56 N.W. 579), relied on by the ... appellee, the scales were in the street. But see ... McGorrisk v. Dwyer, 78 Iowa 279, 43 N.W. 215, ... ...