Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Sawyer
| Decision Date | 25 June 1935 |
| Docket Number | 3 Div. 765 |
| Citation | 163 So. 657,26 Ala.App. 520 |
| Parties | FARMERS & MERCHANTS BANK v. SAWYER et al. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied Aug. 27, 1935
Appeal from Circuit Court, Escambia County; F.W. Hare, Judge.
Action in detinue by the Farmers & Merchants Bank against J.A Sawyer and Lillian M. Sawyer. From a judgment for defendants plaintiff appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Certiorari denied by Supreme Court in Farmers & Merchants Bank v Sawyer (3 Div. 148) 163 So. 659.
Leon G. Brooks, of Brewton, for appellant.
H.C. Rankin, of Brewton, for appellees.
Appellees owned a lot. They built for themselves, to be used as a residence, a dwelling house thereon, in which they installed (through artisans) the articles--two lavatories, a bathtub, an ironing board, a water heater, a porch ceiling light fixture, six bracket wall light fixtures, and nine ceiling light fixtures--the subject of this suit. Each and every one of the articles named was connected in some physical manner with the building erected, and used by appellees for its respective purpose. They might well be termed collectively the plumbing and electric light fixtures of the residence. That is, all except the ironing board, which was built into a wall of the house.
After the construction of the house mentioned, and after and while it was occupied by appellees as a residence, appellant became the owner of same, and entitled to the immediate possession thereof, through valid conveyances to it by appellees.
After this time appellees disconnected and took away and assumed possession of each of the articles mentioned.
This suit--about the form of which no question is raised--has, by common consent, the purpose of determining the ownership of the articles named.
It might be said to be agreed that if the articles--admittedly chattels--had never been, by their annexation to, and use in connection with, the dwelling house in question, converted into a part of the realty, or that the jury was authorized to find from the evidence in the case, that this was true, then the judgment appealed from should be affirmed.
Upon the other hand, if the articles had become, on the undisputed evidence (for it is undisputed), as a matter of law, a part of the realty, the trial court was in error in refusing to give to the jury at appellant's request, the general affirmative charge (with hypothesis) to find in its favor.
The books are full of cases dealing with the general subject of what is a "fixture." That is, "an article which was once a chattel, but which, by being physically annexed or affixed to the realty, has become accessory to it and part and parcel of it." See 11 R.C.L., p. 1057 et seq. But we find no Alabama case dealing with a set of facts in all respects similar to that before us.
Our investigation, however, leads us to the clear conclusion that the articles here in question are to be considered, in the light of utterances of our Supreme Court, and the general law on the subject, fixtures, as the term is hereinabove defined.
We will endeavor to state the reasons for our said conclusion, to wit:
In the case of Tillman v. De Lacy, 80 Ala. 103, the Supreme Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Clopton, said:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fidelity Phenix Fire Ins. Co. of New York v. Raper
... ... equity. 2 Joyce on Ins. § 892. See Essex Savings Bank v ... Meriden Ins. Co. [57 Conn. 335], 17 A. 930, 18 A. 324, 4 ... The rule on this proposition was declared in Farmers & ... Merchants Bank v. Sawyer et al., 26 Ala.App. 520, 163 So ... 657 ... ...
-
Vision Bank & Se Prop. Holding, LLC. v. Harless (In re Harless)
...necessary for the enjoyment of the property, and Debtor intended the annexation to be permanent. See, e.g., Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Sawyer , 163 So. 657, (Ala.Ct.App.1935) (holding that light fixtures were fixtures under Alabama law). The fact that debtor replaced the fixtures with chea......
-
In re Atchison
...it.’ ” Milford v. Tennessee River Pulp & Paper Co. , 355 So.2d 687, 689–90 (Ala.1978) (quoting Farmers and Merchants Bank v. Sawyer , 26 Ala.App. 520, 522, 163 So. 657, 658 (1935) ). “A ‘fixture’ is judicially defined uniformly as an article of personalty which has become so affixed or anne......
-
SYCAMORE Mgmt. GROUP LLC. v. COOSA CABLE Co. INC.
...physically annexed or affixed to the realty, has become an accessory to it and part and parcel of it." Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Sawyer, 26 Ala.App. 520, 522, 163 So. 657, 658 (1935). In order to determine whether an item has become a fixture to real property, there must "`"(1) Actual ann......