Grote v. Brown

• Decision Date: 15 November 1948
• Docket Number: No. 3614.,3614.
• Citation: 6 ALR 2d 318,170 F.2d 747
• Parties: GROTE v. BROWN et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

6 ALR 2d 318, 170 F.2d 747 (1948)

GROTE v. BROWN et al.

No. 3614.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

November 15, 1948.

Albert B. Logan, of Colorado Springs, Colo., for appellant.

J. R. Strickland, of Denver, Colo. (Strickland, Strickland & Tull, of Denver, Colo., on the brief), for appellees Evans and Martin.

Before BRATTON, HUXMAN and MURRAH, Circuit Judges.

MURRAH, Circuit Judge.

The appellant, as administrator to collect the estate of William F. Earle, brought this action in the State District Court of Colorado to replevin certain trade fixtures located in a building at Florence, Colorado. The cause was removed to the Federal Court on agreed diversity of citizenship and requisite amount in controversy.

The fixtures consisted of mining machinery and equipment used and useful in the exfoliation of vermiculite ore, and were installed in the plant by Brown Mineral Research, a partnership, during the term of its lease on the premises. The question is whether appellant, as successor in title to the lessees, may remove the trade fixtures from the premises after the expiration of the lease during which they were installed. The trial court was of the opinion that "even if the law of Colorado permits a tenant to remove trade fixtures within a reasonable time after the expiration of a lease, the tenant in this instance failed to act within that reasonable time." It concluded, therefore, that the title to the fixtures vested in the owner of the building and denied replevin.

Although somewhat involved, the facts are not materially in dispute. The Brown Mineral Research was a partnership, composed of Frank E. Brown, H. W. Eckert, general partners, and William F. Earle and W. T. Middleton, limited partners. On March 10, 1944, the partnership acquired a lease on a building in Florence, Colorado, for use as a vermiculite processing plant. The lease was for one year beginning March 10, 1944, with an option to purchase for $5,000.00. During the term of the lease, the partnership installed the machinery and equipment involved here. Before the termination of the lease, however, and on December 14, 1944, Earle, who had furnished most of the money for the partnership, brought suit against his partners for dissolution of the partnership, and for an accounting of its assets. On March 3, 1945, one week before the expiration of the partnership lease, Brown, being unable to raise the necessary rental money for a renewal of the lease, approached Milford B. Martin, who, together with Brown, arranged with the owner for a lease to Martin for one year beginning with the expiration of the partnership lease on March 10, 1945. Upon the payment of $1,200.00 advance rental, Martin took the lease in his own name, and at his request, Brown signed a statement individually and as attorney in fact for Eckert (who was overseas), to the effect that because of their financial inability to pay the rent, they "both abandon and surrender all our right, title, interest and equity in and to the lease of March 10, 1944." Also at Martin's request, Brown wrote the word "acceptable" on the receipt for the rent, which recited that "this lease is being given up by the previous lessors."

Thereafter Brown had access to the building as living quarters and for the purpose of storing mineral samples, but he ceased using it in December 1945, after having been denied access by Martin. The machinery in question was not being used when Martin obtained his lease, nor has it since been used by anyone else.

To settle the controversy within the partnership, on November 26, 1945, and after the lease of the premises to Martin, Brown and Eckert conveyed all of their right, title and interest in the limited partnership to Earle, who agreed to release the equipment to Brown and Eckert for an agreed rental or sale price. In apparent recognition of Martin's lease on the premises, the settlement agreement recited that Brown and Eckert would negotiate with the Florence Machinery and Supply Company, "or with the lessees, or option holders * * * who have...