Peninsular Stove Co. v. Young

Decision Date08 July 1929
Docket NumberNo. 117.,117.
PartiesPENINSULAR STOVE CO. v. YOUNG et al.
CourtMichigan Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County, in Chancery; Ira W. Jayne, Judge.

Suit by the Thomas Forman Company against Sum H. Young and others, in which the Peninsular Stove Company filed cross-bill. From a decree dismissing the cross-bill, cross-plaintiff appeals. Reversed and rendered.

Argued before NORTH, C. J., and FEAD, FELLOWS, WIEST, CLARK, McDONALD, POTTER, and SHARPE, JJ. Lucking, Hanlon, Van Auken & Sprague, of Detroit, for appellant.

John P. Neudorfer, of Detroit (Harold A. Jones, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellees Means, Wade, Hoff, Hoffman, and Mortgage Guarantee Co.

SHARPE, J.

Plaintiff here seeks by cross-bill to enforce a lien upon an apartment building erected by defendants Young and Taan for the price of 49 gas ranges which were installed therein. These ranges were delivered on the premises by the plaintiff, and were installed by employees of the defendants by placing them against the walls in the several apartments and connecting them with a gas fixture which had been placed therein. Plaintiff appeals from the decree entered dismissing its cross-bill.

Section 14796, Comp. Laws 1915 (Mechanics' Lien Law), provides that ‘Every person who shall, in pursuance of any contract, * * * furnish any * * * materials in or for building, altering, improving, repairing, erecting, ornamenting or putting in any house, building * * * or structure, * * * shall have a lien therefor.’

The test to be applied is whether these gas ranges were fixtures and became annexed to the real estate when installed. What are fixtures and become part of the realty was considered at length in Morris v. Alexander, 208 Mich. 387, 175 N. W. 264. This court there approved of the three general tests which may be applied as stated in 11 R. C. L. p. 1059. These are, ‘first, annexation to the realty, either actual or constructive; second, adaptation or application to the use or purpose to which that part of the realty to which it is connected is appropriated; and third, intention to make the article a permanent accession to the freehold.’ In applying these tests, consideration must be given to the nature of the structure and the use to which it was to be put when completed. The building was erected for use as an apartment house, a family to occupy each apartment. As is usual in such buildings, the several apartments become homes for the occupants, with the usual conveniences for housekeeping installed therein. Among...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Detroit Trust Co. v. Detroit City Serv. Co.
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • March 1, 1933
    ...Mich. 706, 110 N. W. 56; Lyle v. Palmer, 42 Mich. 314, 3 N. W. 921;Tyler v. Hayward, 235 Mich. 674, 209 N. W. 801;Peninsular Stove Co. v. Young, 247 Mich. 580, 226 N. W. 225;Kent Storage Co. v. Grand Rapids Lumber Co., 239 Mich. 161, 214 N. W. 111;First Mortgage Bond Co. v. London, 259 Mich......
  • Matter of Cliff's Ridge Skiing Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Western District of Michigan
    • February 5, 1991
    ...255 N.W. 433, 434 (1934); First Mortgage Bond Co. v. London, 259 Mich. 688, 691, 244 N.W. 203, 204 (1932); Peninsular Stove Co. v. Young, 247 Mich. 580, 582, 226 N.W. 225, 226 (1929); Morris v. Alexander, 208 Mich. 387, 390-391, 175 N.W. 264, 265 (1919). The three-part test remains valid un......
  • Motors Liquidation Co. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (In re Motors Liquidation Co.)
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of New York
    • September 26, 2017
    ...certainly a secondary market for the gas ranges in Peninsular Stove Co. v. Young , but they too were held to be fixtures. 247 Mich. 580, 226 N.W. 225, 226 (1929).And surely the existence of a secondary market alone is not enough to overcome the presumption that the owner of property that in......
  • Velmer v. Baraga Area Schools, Docket No. 80356
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • May 16, 1988
    ...it is connected is appropriated; and intention to make the article a permanent accession to the freehold." Peninsular Stove Co. v. Young, 247 Mich. 580, 582, 226 N.W. 225 (1929). In general, the controlling intention is that manifested by the annexing party by "objective, visible facts." Mi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT