Saye v. Hill

• Decision Date: 10 February 1915
• Docket Number: 8992.
• Citation: 84 S.E. 307,100 S.C. 21
• Parties: SAYE ET AL. v. HILL.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

84 S.E. 307

100 S.C. 21

SAYE ET AL. v. HILL.

No. 8992.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

February 10, 1915

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of York County; R. C. Watts Judge.

Action by Ella R. Saye and another against W. L. Hill. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Reversed for new trial.

Hart & Hart, of Yorkville, for appellant.

J. S Brice, of Yorkville, for respondents.

HYDRICK J.

In 1888 or 1889 John L. Rainey conveyed a lot in the town of Sharon York county, to a railroad company by a deed which provided that the lot was to be used only for a depot site. The deed was never recorded, and the company did not use the lot for a depot site, but it was generally believed in the community that the lot belonged to the company. In 1901 the defendant Hill, obtained the consent of the company to erect a cotton gin, grist mill, and planing mill on the lot. The buildings were erected and machinery installed therein, and some wells were bored and fitted with pipes and pumps for use in connection with the running of the machinery. This was done with the knowledge and acquiescence of Rainey. In 1904 Rainey brought suit against the company and Hill to recover possession of the lot, on the ground that it was not being used for the purpose for which it had been conveyed. In that suit it was adjudged that Rainey recover possession of the lot, and that Hill have until May 1, 1908, to remove his buildings, and that on and after that date he should vacate and surrender the premises to Rainey. Nothing was said in the decree about the machinery. Hill failed to remove the buildings or machinery within the time specified. In November, 1908, Rainey conveyed the lot to his daughters, the plaintiffs herein. Thereafter, and after he had been notified by the plaintiffs not to trespass upon the lot, he went on it and removed certain machinery--to wit, an engine and grist mill--and took up and carried off the pipes and pumps out of the wells. This action was brought to recover actual and punitive damages for the conversion of the property and for the trespass.

The plaintiffs base their claim to damages for the conversion of the property on the contention that it had been so attached to the freehold as to become fixtures, and passed to them with the lot. The engine, which was what is known as a stationary engine, was bolted to heavy timbers which were embedded in the soil. The mill was set upon and fastened to a framework of heavy timbers, and the floor of the building was laid around it.

At the trial the defendant admitted liability for nominal damages for the trespass in removing the property after the time specified in the decree above mentioned, but denied liability for the alleged conversion, contending that the property removed was his own. He requested the following instructions:

"(1) That where a structure is placed upon land, not to promote the convenient use of the land, but to be used for some temporary purpose, external to the land, and the land is used only as a foundation, because some foundation is necessary for the business, then the structure and its belongings are not fixtures. Hughes v.

...