Hanson v. Vose
| Citation | 175 N.W. 113,144 Minn. 264 |
| Decision Date | 12 December 1919 |
| Docket Number | 21,450 |
| Parties | H. STANLEY HANSON v. FLORENCE H. VOSE AND ANOTHER |
| Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
Action in replevin in the district court for Hennepin county to recover possession of the chattels enumerated in the first paragraph of the opinion, or for $1,738.25, the value thereof in case delivery could not be had and $500 for their detention. In their answer defendants alleged that demand was made for the property and refused by defendants; that the property had not been taken for a tax assessment or fine, nor sold under an execution or attachment and that defendants were still in possession of the property. The case was tried before Fish, J., who when plaintiff rested denied defendants' motion to dismiss the action and at the close of the testimony granted their motion for a directed verdict in favor of defendant Vose. From an order denying his motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed. Reversed.
Fixture.
1. A chattel does not become a fixture, unless physically or constructively annexed to the freehold.
Chattel.
2. An article annexed to the freehold, but which can be removed without substantial injury to the realty, may remain a chattel, if the circumstances show that such was the intention.
Landlord and tenant -- fixture.
3. Where the holder of a ground lease erects an apartment building and installs a gas range and a door bed in each flat, and thereafter forfeits his lease, these articles will pass as fixtures to the owner of the realty, if no rights of third parties are infringed and there be no agreement to the contrary.
Landlord and tenant -- rights of third parties.
4. As against third parties having rights in these ranges and beds the landowner is in substantially the same position as a prior mortgagee of the land.
Conditional sale of gas ranges and door beds -- rights of vendee's assignee.
5. Where the holder of the ground lease purchased these ranges and beds under a conditional contract of sale, by which title and right of removal remained in the vendors, and after defaulting in his payments transferred all his rights in them to a third party, not concerned in the real estate, whom the vendors accepted as the purchaser in his stead, he never had the right to make them a part of the realty, and such third party is entitled to them as against the landowner.
Rule inapplicable.
6. The rule requiring a tenant to remove his removable fixtures at or before the end of his term does not apply to a person in the position of such third party.
George S. Grimes, for appellant.
William B. McIntyre, for respondents.
Replevin to obtain possession of 19 Murphy door beds, 19 gas ranges and two laundry stoves. The court directed a verdict for defendant, and plaintiff appealed from an order denying a new trial.
Defendant Vose, who will be designated as defendant hereafter, leased a parcel of land in the city of Minneapolis to Harold N. Falk for a term of one hundred years at a specified annual rental payable quarterly. The lease required Falk to erect a brick apartment building on the property "divided into flats and all complete and ready to live therein and to rent," and provided for the execution of a mortgage on the building and land for a part of the cost of the building. Falk erected a building divided into 19 flats and installed a Murphy door bed and a gas range in each flat and two gas laundry stoves in the basement. He purchased the ranges and stoves from the Minneapolis Gas Light Company under a contract which provided for payment of the purchase price in monthly installments, and further provided that the company retained ownership of them, with the right to take possession of and remove them in case of default in such payments. He purchased the beds from the New England Furniture & Carpet Company under a similar contract. These contracts were duly filed in the office of the city clerk. After making the stipulated payments for a considerable time, Falk defaulted therein, and on account of such default the gas company was about to reclaim and remove the ranges and stoves, and the furniture company was about to remove the beds. Falk was also indebted to A. R. Chesnut in the sum of $4,000. He and Chesnut made an arrangement with plaintiff, by which he conveyed to plaintiff by bill of sale all his interest in the ranges, stoves and beds, and plaintiff agreed to make the remaining payments to the companies as they accrued, and to sell the ranges, stoves and beds as soon as they were fully paid for, and, after deducting his advances with interest from the proceeds, to pay the balance thereof to Chesnut to be applied on Falk's indebtedness to Chesnut. Falk assigned to plaintiff his contract with the furniture company and that company assented thereto. Falk's contract with the gas company was surrendered and canceled, and in lieu thereof a new contract was executed by that company directly to plaintiff. Plaintiff made the payments to the companies as they accrued, until the amounts unpaid were reduced to the sums of $35 and $20, respectively.
In the meantime defendant had canceled Falk's ground lease of the land for nonpayment of rent, and took possession of the building and the ranges, stoves and beds, claiming them as a part of the realty. About five weeks later, and after an unsuccessful attempt to adjust the matter, plaintiff brought this action.
The question presented is whether the court erred in ruling as a matter of law that the ranges, stoves and beds had become a part of the realty.
While there are well settled general rules for determining whether an article, originally personal property, has become a fixture, that is, a part of the realty, it is frequently difficult to determine whether, under the peculiar facts of a particular case, a particular article has become a part of the realty or still remains personal property.
To become a fixture the article must be physically or constructively attached to the freehold. If not attached to the freehold and not an essential or component part of some structure or appliance which is attached to it, the article remains a chattel, although intended for permanent use on the premises. If annexed to the freehold, the manner in which it is annexed may convert it into realty regardless of other considerations, as where brick or other material has been incorporated into a permanent building, or where an article, otherwise a severable chattel, cannot be removed without leaving the freehold in a substantially worse condition than before the annexation. Usually, however, the manner of annexation is not decisive, but only one of several facts to be taken into account in determining whether the article has become realty or remains personalty as between the parties concerned. Northwestern Lumber & W Co. v. Parker, 125 Minn. 107, 145 N.W. 964.
In the present case the ranges and stoves were annexed to the building only by the ordinary plumbing fixtures, and could be unscrewed from the gas pipes and removed without injury to the building itself. The door beds were arranged to swing back into closets when not in use. In order to receive them the closets were constructed of a greater size and with wider doors than ordinary closets. Each bed rested on a pedestal which was fastened to the floor by screws, and served as a pivot on which the bed was swung from the room into the closet or from the closet into the room. There was also an appliance for holding the bed in position which was fastened to the door casing by screws. These beds could be removed without material injury to the building. Both the ranges and stoves and the beds were annexed to the building sufficiently to constitute them fixtures under some circumstances. So far as annexation is concerned they are in about the same situation as the radiators and office desk held to be fixtures as between mortgager and mortgagee in...
To continue reading
Request your trial