Southbridge Sav. Bank v. Mason

• Decision Date: 19 October 1888
• Citation: 18 N.E. 406,147 Mass. 500
• Parties: SOUTHBRIDGE SAV. BANK v. MASON et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

147 Mass. 500

18 N.E. 406

SOUTHBRIDGE SAV. BANK v. MASON et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

October 19, 1888

COUNSEL

A.J. Bartholomew, for complainant.

J.M Cochran, for defendants.

OPINION

KNOWLTON, J.

The plaintiff in this bill seeks to enjoin the defendants from removing machinery and other property from real estate of which it is the mortgagee. The case was referred to a master who heard the parties, and made a report, and upon a recommittal, with instructions to make certain special findings, heard them again, and made a supplemental report. The defendant filed exceptions to both of these reports. Upon a hearing in the superior court, upon the pleadings, the master's reports, and the exceptions, a decree was entered in accordance with the view taken by the master, and the case comes to this court upon appeals by both parties. Many other questions were involved in the issues between the parties, but the only ones argued before us relate the master's findings that certain articles of machinery and other similar property were a part of the real estate, and that certain other articles were not. The plaintiff's mortgage was dated August 3, 1869, and it covered land upon which a mill was then in process of erection. This mill was soon afterwards completed and fitted up to be used in the business of calico printing, which includes dyeing and bleaching, and was supplied with machinery adapted to the prosecution of that business. Adjacent to it, and covered by the same mortgage, was a machine-shop, containing machinery designed to be used in making repairs. The master, in his supplemental report, makes findings upon 67 different items of articles and classes of articles of machinery, and other kindred property. All of those now in dispute, except one etching machine, one setting-out table, one bolt-cutting machine, one straightening machine, two wood planers, and one wood-matching machine, he found to be so connected with the real estate as to pass to the mortgagee. These seven machines he found to be personal property belonging to the defendants. The plaintiff's claim relates to the 6 items which include these, and the defendants' exceptions to 28 of the other items. Upon neither side did the arguments before us bring to our attention anything in the nature or construction or mode of attachment or use of any particular machine, which materially distinguished it from others which were included in the same general finding, but certain considerations were urged upon us by the plaintiff, which apply alike to each of the seven machines which were found to be personal property, and certain other considerations were presented by the defendants, which were relied on to establish that claim to the 28 articles and classes of articles named in their first exception to the supplemental report. Whether a machine set up in a building is real estate or personal property is commonly a mixed question of law and fact. The general principles of law applicable to such questions, when they arise between mortgagor and mortgagee, are well established. "Whatever is placed in a building subject to a mortgage, by a mortgagor, or those claiming under him, to carry out the purpose for which it was erected, and permanently to increase its value for occupation or use, although it may be removed without injury to itself or the building, becomes part of the realty, as between mortgagor and mortgagee, and cannot be removed or otherwise disposed of while the mortgage is in force." The "object, the effect, and the mode of its annexation," must be considered. Paper Co. v. Servin, 130 Mass. 513; Pierce v. George, 108 Mass. 78; McConnell v. Blood, 123 Mass. 47; McLaughlin v. Nash, 14 Allen, 136. A finding of fact cannot be set aside upon appeal in this court unless it is plainly wrong. Reed v. Reed, 114 Mass. 372; Montgomery v. Pickering, 116 Mass. 230.

In the case at bar, the evidence reported, descriptive of particular machines, is, as to many of them, exceedingly meager; but it appears by the supplemental report that the master visited the factory, and saw each machine, and the mode of its attachment. Under these circumstances there are strong presumptions in favor of his findings, and the findings must be assumed to be correct unless the facts and evidence reported show that they are wrong. There was ample evidence to support the finding that "the building was built for a calico-printing factory, and was adapted to the use of the machinery named in the bill, which was put in to carry out the purpose for which the building was built." Several witnesses testified directly upon that point. Many of the machines rested upon stone...