Wolford v. Baxter

• Decision Date: 18 December 1884
• Parties: WOLFORD v BAXTER AND OTHERS.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

33 Minn. 12

21 N.W. 744

WOLFORDvBAXTER AND OTHERS.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Filed December 18, 1884.

Appeal from an order of the district court, Rice county.

F. Hooker, for appellant, Peter Wolford.

Geo. N. Baxter, for himself and others.

MITCHELL, J.

In February, 1881, the defendants Mueller and Siebold, being the owners of certain real estate upon which was situated a brewery, executed a mortgage on the premises to the plaintiff. In February, 1883, the same parties executed a chattel mortgage on the article in controversy to defendant Baxter. The plaintiff claims that these articles were fixtures constituting a part of the realty, and as such were covered by his mortgage on the land. On the other hand, defendant Baxter claims that they were chattels. This presents the only point in the case. The court below held that the air-pump and the iron pump, which were fastened to the building, were a part of the realty and covered by plaintiff's mortgage. Hence, as Baxter does not object, these articles need not be considered. It is too plain to require argument that the loose circular rotary pump, the swimmers, ice tools, pitching machine, and kettle were mere chattels. In fact, plaintiff makes no point as to them. This reduces the controversy to three classes of articles, to-wit, 47 large coops, casks, or hogsheads used for holding and storing beer, 12 fermenting tubs, and 1 copper cooler. In fact, they may be reduced to two classes, for the coops and fermenting tubs stand on the same footing. The case was submitted in the court below upon an agreed statement of facts, which we will leave to be set out, so far as material, in the statement of the case.

It has often been remarked that the law of “fixtures” is one of the most uncertain titles in the entire body of jurisprudence. The lines between personal property and fixtures is often so close and so nicely drawn that no precise and fixed rule can be laid down to control all cases. It is difficult, if not impossible, to give a definition of the term which may be regarded of universal application. Each case must be more or less dependent upon its own peculiar facts. Whether a thing is a fixture or not has been sometimes said to be a question partly of law and partly of fact. Almost every court and every text writer has attempted to define the term. None of these are infallible or of universal application; but they are of service in determining whether an article is or is not, in a given case, a fixture. These definitions may be found collected in almost any law dictionary or text-book on the subject. We shall neither quote them nor attempt to give a definition of our own, but simply say that they all agree that “fixtures,” in the primary meaning of the term, (and distinguished from movable or tenants' fixtures,) means chattels annexed to the realty so as to become a part of it.

While not agreeing as to to the necessity for, or the degree of importance to be attached to, the fact of actual physical annexation, yet the authorities generally unite in holding that, to constitute a fixture, the thing must be of an accessory character, and must be in some way in actual or constructive union with the principal subject, and not merely brought upon it; that in determining whether the article is personal property, or has become a part of the realty, there should be considered the fact and character of annexation, the nature of the thing annexed, the adaptability of the thing to the use of the land, the intent of the party in making the annexation, the end sought by annexation, and the relation of the party making it to the freehold. These other tests named, while having an important bearing upon the questions, whether there has...