Forbes v. Alabama Machinery & Supply Co.
| Decision Date | 25 April 1912 |
| Citation | 176 Ala. 423,58 So. 398 |
| Parties | FORBES v. ALABAMA MACHINERY & SUPPLY CO. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from City Court of Montgomery; William H. Thomas, Judge.
Bill by the Alabama Machinery & Supply Company against A. G. Forbes to enforce a mechanic's or materialman's lien. Decree for complainant, and respondent appeals. Reversed and rendered.
The bill was filed against Forbes as trustee in a deed of trust to secure bonds in the sum of $10,000, issued by the State Publishing Company. It is alleged that Forbes sold the property under the deed of trust, and became the purchaser at and for the sum of $10,000, and that the court confirmed the sale, and that orator was not made a party. A. G. Forbes individually and as trustee, is made a party respondent, and the prayer is as indicated by the opinion.
Ball & Samford, of Montgomery, for appellant.
Horace Stringfellow, of Montgomery, for appellee.
The bill was filed by complainant under section 4754 of the Code to enforce a lien for labor done and materials furnished by it for the installation of the printing and publishing plant of the State Publishing Company. There is no dispute as to the material facts.
Complainant furnished to the State Company a lot of leather belting, drop hangers, lag screws, bolts, shafting, pulleys, journal boxes etc.; these being the attachments, fastenings, and appurtenances by means of which the printing presses and other machines in the building were connected with and operated by mechanical power. Complainant also placed these various attachments and the presses and machines in position in the building leased and occupied by the State Company, by which the whole plant was prepared for practical operation. The hangers and pulleys were fastened to the ceiling by screws; the presses were attached to the floor by lag screws and the main shaft was attached by bolts to a brick and concrete pedestal; and the belting connected the printing machinery with the motor by means of the shafts and pulleys. The entire outfit could be and was removed from the building without injury thereto, by merely removing the screws and bolts.
Complainant claims and seeks to enforce a lien on "the printing press and attachments," which are described in the bill as a "Potter Perfecting Printing Press, and the attachments, consisting of machinery shafts, pulleys, belting," etc.
The chancellor overruled demurrers to the bill of complaint, and on final hearing decreed that complainant was entitled to the relief prayed for, ordered respondent to deliver up the several articles to the register, and, in default of such delivery, rendered a personal judgment against respondent for the amount of the lien. From this decree, respondent appeals.
The decisive question in the case is whether sections 4754 and 4756 of the Code, under which complainant claims and is proceeding, gives to it a mechanic's and materialman's lien on property of such character and condition as that above described.
It is perfectly clear that the printing press and attachments above described were trade fixtures, and that they never became a part of the realty. They form an exception to the general rule, which is almost as ancient as the rule itself. Harkness v. Sears, 26 Ala. 497, 62 Am. Dec. 742. Easily removed without injury to the freehold, it must be presumed that such machinery, when installed by a tenant for use in his business, is not intended as an addition to or improvement of the land.
As a general rule, whatever is attached to realty, although but slightly, is prima facie a part of it. Parker v. Blount County, 148 Ala. 277, 41 So. 923; 19 Cyc. 1036. But, where such attachments are trade fixtures, this presumption is rebutted. Thompson Scenic R. Co. v. Young, 90 Md. 278, 44 A. 1024.
Section 4754 of the Code provides that any person "who shall do or perform any work or labor upon, or furnish any material, fixture, engine, boiler or machinery for any building or improvement on land, or for repairing, altering or beautifying the same, * * * shall have a lien therefor on such building or improvement, and on the land on which the same is situated," etc.
Section 4756 provides that when the building or improvement is erected for a lessee in possession of land, not in violation of the terms of the lease, "the lien shall attach to such building or improvement, and to the unexpired term of the lease"; and, upon a sale of the building or improvement to enforce the lien, the purchaser thereof may take over the lease, also, by performing its obligations, or he may, within 60 days, remove the building or improvement from the premises.
Section 4757 provides that the lessor may, before the sale, discharge a lien attaching under the preceding section by paying to the holder the amount due him, or, after a sale, by paying to the purchaser the value of the building or improvement; and, in either case, such building or improvement shall become the property...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Becker Roofing Co. v. Wysinger
... ... Farley, 212 ... Ala. 594, 103 So. 882; Vesuvius Lumber Co. v. Alabama ... Co., 203 Ala. 93, 82 So. 107; Pilcher v ... Porter, 208 Ala. 202, ... improvements or machinery has been erected or put; *** ... where there is a prior mortgage or lien ... 852, 67 Am. St ... Rep. 147; Turner v. Robbins, 78 Ala. 592; Forbes ... v. Alabama, etc., Co., 176 Ala. 423, 429, 58 So. 398; ... First Ave ... by due process of law.' Randolph v. Builders' & ... Painters' Supply Co., 106 Ala. 501, 512, 17 So. 721 ... And in a later case, on the ... ...
-
Spalding v. Columbia Theatre Company
...Ombony v. Jones, 19 N.Y. 234; Hatton v. Railroad, 253 Mo. 660; New Castle Theatre Co. v. Ward, 104 N.E. 526; Forbes v. Alabama Machinery & Supply Co. (Ala. 1912), 58 So. 398; Webber v. Franklin Brewing Co. (App.Div.), 108 N.Y.S. 251; Walker v. Tillis, 66 So. 54. (4) The common-law rule rela......
-
Nelson Weaver Mortg. Co. v. Dover Elevator Co.
...of the building or attached to it. Wade v. Glencoe Lumber Co., 267 Ala. 530, 103 So.2d 730, 733, supra; Forbes v. Alabama Machinery & Supply Co., 176 Ala. 423, 58 So. 398. It would seem, however, that appellant, in his brief, has relied only on the testimony of his own witness, Mr. Lyles, i......
-
Wilkinson v. Rowe
...case; but it is weighty nevertheless, and accords with the general consensus of judicial oninion.' Forbes v. Alabama Machinery & Supply Co., 176 Ala. 423, 427, 428, 429, 58 So. 398, 399. Can it be said from the averments of the bill in this case that anything has attached to and become a pa......