Plough v. Petersen
| Decision Date | 09 April 1956 |
| Citation | 140 Cal.App.2d 595,295 P.2d 549,55 A.L.R.2d 1042 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | , 55 A.L.R.2d 1042 Kenneth O. PLOUGH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. C. Ross PETERSEN, Eleanor Petersen, Catherine Laguens, Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 16869. |
Mack & Jorgenson, John D. Jorgenson, Menlo Park, for appellant.
Reginald G. Hearn, San Francisco, for respondents.
Plaintiff, the beneficiary under a deed of trust on a residence then owned by the defendants Petersen, bought it at the foreclosure sale. He sued to recover certain articles which defendants had removed from the premises. He appeals from that part of the judgment which denied him the recovery of certain rugs, which the court found were personal property and not fixtures. The appeal has been submitted by appellant waiving oral argument. Although respondent has not filed any brief we have concluded that the judgment must be affirmed.
Whether a certain object in a house is a fixture or personalty is a question of fact and various factors must be considered, such as the manner of its annexation, its adaptability to the purpose for which the realty is used, and the intention of the party making the annexation, Knell v. Morris, 39 Cal.2d 450, 456, 247 P.2d 352.
The evidence showed that the rugs covered concrete floors. On these floors, all around the perimeter of each of the rooms involved, were affixed wooden strips from which tacks were sticking up, inclined towards the nearest wall. On these wooden strips and tacks the rugs were placed. They could be removed by just lifting them up along the walls, but some strands of wool of them remained on some of the little nails after the removal and the place a piece of rug remained on the strip against the wall after the rug had there been cut off. The defendants transferred the rugs to another house. They had been bought on a conditional sales contract for more than $6,000 and were still being paid off. A chattel mortgage on them and been recorded prior to the execution of the deed of trust. They had not been seen by or discussed with plaintiff before said execution of the deed. Defendant Petersen testified that when he put the rugs down in the house he intended to leave then there during the period of their usefulness.
Whether under the above evidence the rugs were fixtures or personalty may be subject to reasonable difference of opinion; hence the factual decision of the trial court is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cox v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
...of other states. The decided majority of the cases have concluded that such carpeting is not a fixture. Plough v. Petersen, 140 Cal.App.2d 595, 295 P.2d 549, 55 A.L.R.2d 1042 (1956); Maas Bros. v. Guaranty Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 157 So.2d 528 (Fla.App., 1963); Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Bal......
-
People v. Moler
... ... integral to structure because they were necessary to attract ... tenants]; with Plough v. Petersen (1956) 140 ... Cal.App.2d 595, 596-597 [wall-to-wall carpeting not a fixture ... where it was purchased on conditional sales ... ...
-
Dean Vincent, Inc. v. Redisco, Inc.
...to consider whether the facts of the case at bar operate to make these floor coverings fixtures. See Plough v. Petersen, 140 Cal.App.2d 595, 295 P.2d 549, 55 A.L.R.2d 1042, holding that the classification of wall-to-wall carpet in a case of this character depends upon a consideration of all......
-
Banks v. Clintworth
...primarily a question of fact to be determined by the evidence. [Citation.]' The same principle is thus stated in Plough v. Petersen, 140 Cal.App.2d 595, 596, 295 P.2d 549, 550: 'Whether a certain object in a house is a fixture or personalty is a question of fact and various factors must be ......