Langston v. State
| Decision Date | 16 June 1892 |
| Citation | 96 Ala. 44,11 So. 334 |
| Parties | LANGSTON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from city court of Montgomery; THOMAS M. ARRINGTON, Judge.
Charles Langston, having been convicted of larceny, appeals. Reversed.
The court in its general charge instructed the jury "that so far as the evidence was concerned in this case, he would hold that the property stolen was not a fixture, but was personal property." The defendant excepted to this portion of the charge, and also excepted to the court's refusal to give each of the following written charges requested by him: (1) "The court charges the jury that if they believe the evidence, they must find the defendant not guilty of the offense charged in the first count of the indictment." (2) "The court charges the jury, if they believe the evidence, they must find the defendant not guilty of the offense charged in the second count of the indictment." (3) "The court charges the jury that if they are reasonably satisfied from the evidence that the brasses or cocks described in the first count were attached to a steam pump; that said pump was screwed on or attached to an iron boiler of great weight; that said boiler and pump were put on the plantation of Mr. Scott with intention of using them as a fixture, or intended as a permanent improvement,-then they must find the defendant not guilty as to said first count." (4) "The court charges the jury that if they are reasonably satisfied from the evidence that the brasses or cocks described in the second count were screwed on or permanently atached to iron pipes; that said iron pipes were permanently attached to a house used for manufacturing purposes, and said house built on the ground or attached to the freehold; and that they were built with the intention of manufacturing,-then said brasses or cocks were a fixture, and they must find the defendant not guilty of the offense charged in said second count."
Chas. Wilkiuson, for appellant.
Wm. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appellant in this case was indicted and convicted of the larceny of a certain number of valves or cocks. The indictment contained two counts, each in common form for larceny. The first count charges that the valves were the property of M. C. Scott, and the second that the subject of the larceny was the property of the Montgomery Furnace & Chemical Company. There was no conflict in the testimony, and the assignments of error present for our consideration the rulings of the lower court upon the charges given and refused. The testimony was to the effect that three of the valves alleged to have been stolen were attached to a boiler and pump, which had been purchased by M. C. Scott, and carried out to his wife's plantation, and this machinery was used for the purpose of pumping water for his stock, and to irrigate his land. Mr. Scott further testified, as is stated in the bill of exceptions, "that he intended said boiler and pump to be a permanent improvement on the plantation; that said boiler and pump could be moved, and had been moved up and down the river so as to more conveniently pump water; that said boiler was on skids, that is, wooden logs, and the skids lay on brick which lay on the ground, and were not imbedded in the ground; that said boiler could be put on a wagon, and carried to any point desired." It was further shown that the other valves alleged to have been stolen belonged to the Montgomery Furnace & Chemical Company. The Montgomery Furnace & Chemical Company owned a building that was built and used for manufacturing purposes. Around the inside of said building there were arranged iron pipes, and these pipes were attached to the said building by staples. The pipes were used in the manufacturing business, and it was necessary to have them in order to carry on the manufacturing business contemplated by the Montgomery Furnace & Chemical Company. At the ends of these said pipes, and on the joints thereof, the valves or cocks alleged to have been stolen were screwed. These valves were used in, and were necessary to carry on, the said manufacturing business.
The question presented for our consideration is whether the articles alleged...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Collins v. State, 6 Div. 40
...or not a certain piece of property is a fixture, this doubt must be decided by the circumstances of each individual case. Langston v. State, 96 Ala. 55, 11 So. 334. Several rules were listed by the court in Langston for determining the character of a fixture. They "(1) Actual annexation to ......
-
Crumbley Grocery Co. v. Ferguson
... ... to be assessed to him on the personal assessment ... [132 So. 738] ... rolls of the county and state, and paid taxes thereon for two ... years, and that the property described in the affidavit was ... not assessed as such to the defendant, ... ...
-
Vision Bank & Se Prop. Holding, LLC. v. Harless (In re Harless)
...annexation; (c) the structure and mode of annexation; (d) the purposes and uses for which the annexation has been made. Langston v. State , 11 So. 334, 335 (Ala.1892). Per the requirements set forth in Langston, the light fixtures, ceiling fans, and speakers were fixtures as they were attac......
-
SYCAMORE Mgmt. GROUP LLC. v. COOSA CABLE Co. INC.
...(Ala. 1989) (quoting Milford v. Tennessee River Pulp & Paper Co., 355 So.2d 687, 690 (Ala.1978), quoting in turn Langston v. State, 96 Ala. 44, 46, 11 So. 334, 335 (1891)). Coosa Cable argues that the cable wiring and related equipment are "trade" fixtures and are, therefore, the personal p......