Palmateer v. Robinson

• Decision Date: 09 December 1897
• Parties: PALMATEER et al. v. ROBINSON.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

38 A. 957

60 N.J.L. 433

PALMATEER et al.

v. ROBINSON.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Dec. 9, 1897.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error to supreme court.

This was an action of trover by George N. Robinson to recover damages for the conversion of certain machinery by John and Amos Palmateer. The bills of exception disclosed that Robinson, then the owner of the machinery, on October 4, 1893, contracted to sell it to the New Jersey Mill & Lumber Company, of Long Branch. The contract was in writing, and it was thereby expressly agreed between the contracting parties that the title to the machinery should remain in the vendor until the full payment of the purchase price, and that it should not become, or be taken to be, real estate, or appurtenances to real estate, although fixed to land, but should remain personal property, until fully paid for. The machinery was affixed to land by the vendee, and a building was erected over it; but it could be removed without injury to any other buildings, and with trifling injury to the building erected over it. The land to which the building was affixed belonged to the Palmateers. The New Jersey Mill & Lumber Company had no title thereto, but were in possession by virtue of an agreement in writing whereby the Palmateers agreed to sell the same to the company. The company failed to pay the stipulated price for the land, and the Palmateers, in some mode not disclosed by the bills of exception re-entered into possession. The company likewise failed to pay the purchase price for the machinery. Robinson made demand on the Palmateers for the machinery, and they refused to deliver it, or to permit Robinson to take it from the land. The trial court submitted the facts to the jury, who found for Robinson. The judgment upon such verdict was brought to the supreme court by writ of error, and affirmed. The judgment of the supreme court is brought here by this writ of error. Affirmed.

Hawkins & Durand, for plaintiffs, in error.

Heisley & Morris, for defendant in error.

MAGIE, C. J. (after stating the facts). The single question presented by the assignments of error and the briefs in the case is whether, upon the facts set out in the bills of exception, the court below was right in holding that the machinery in question remained the property of Robinson, the vendor, and did not cease to be his personal property by its annexation to the land of the Palmateers. In view of the express provisions of the contract of sale of the machinery, made between Robinson, its owner, and the New Jersey Mill & Lumber Company, it is perfectly obvious that if that company had affixed the machinery to land belonging to it, in the same manner in which it affixed it to land of the Palmateers, which it occupied under a contract of purchase, such annexation would not necessarily have incorporated the machinery with the land, so as to change its character from personalty to realty; for, whether property personal in character becomes transformed into realty by annexation depends, among other things, upon the intent, expressed or implied, with which the annexation was made. Pope v. Skinkle. 45 N. J. Law, 39; Campbell v. Roddy, 44 N. J. Eq. 244, 14 Atl. 279. The intent of the company in making annexation of machinery which they held under such a contract must be considered to have been...