Kingsley v. McFarland

• Decision Date: 31 December 1889
• Citation: 19 A. 442,82 Me. 231
• Parties: KINGSLEY v. MCFARLAND et al.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

19 A. 442

82 Me. 231

KINGSLEY

v. MCFARLAND et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Dec. 31, 1889.

(Official.)

Report from supreme judicial court, Hancock county.

Wiswell, King & Peters, for plaintiff. G. P. Dutton, for defendants.

VIRGIN, J. Writ of entry to obtain possession of a certain parcel of land at Bar Harbor, with the buildings thereon, comprising a two-story dwelling-house and stable. The defendants do not contest the plaintiff's title and right of possession of the land, but claim that the buildings are personal property, the defendant Phillips' alleged title being under a mortgage from the other defendant.

A careful examination of the reported evidence satisfies us of the following facts: The plaintiff, owning the land in question, in the early part of 1888 orally agreed to sell it for $6,000 to McFarland, who agreed to pay that sum there for, and to move thereon the L of a certain hotel, and make it into a boarding-house; and then, upon receiving a deed from the plaintiff, McFarland was to give back a mortgage to secure the payment of the whole purchase money. Under this agreement McFarland entered into possession. The L was moved on, some 15 feet added thereto, and finished off into a boarding-house, with a piazza extending the entire length of one side and across one end. Like most of the buildings there, this one rested on 50 cedar posts, was boarded down into the ground, and connected with the sewers and water-pipe. A stable was also erected standing on stone piers.

McFarland hired money of his co-defendant Phillips with which to purchase and move the L, and for security gave him a chattel mortgage thereof dated March 8, 1888, and recorded March 10th. As to the location of the L when the mortgage was given, the evidence is somewhat conflicting. McFarland testifies that it was given "before the L was started;" Phillips, "while it was in process of moving." But the mortgage itself describes the building as then on the land in question; and the disinterested witness, Lord, called to the premises, on March 4th, by McFarland, to estimate the cost of completing the building, testifies that on March 4th (four days before the date of the mortgage) "the building was on the land as it is now all moved." In May, after the stable was erected, McFarland mortgaged it as a chattel to Phillips. Our conclusion is that the house was mortgaged after it was on the land.

It is undisputed that Phillips knew that the L was to be moved onto the lot when McFarland purchased it, and evidently understood, as did the other parties, the purpose and object of the removal.

Under these circumstances, we can have no doubt that these buildings became a part of the realty, and could neither be attached nor mortgaged, as the personal property of McFarland, against the objections of...