Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

to identify the ship to the satisfaction of the registrar, according to the form given in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854. The provisions of this statute extend to an executory contract for the transfer of a ship at a future day as well as to the immediate instrument of transfer itself, so that, if the directions of the Act with regard to the form of the writing and the registration thereof are not complied with, the executory contract will not support an action for specific performance or for damages. (7) The duty of registering a transfer of ownership rests with the vendee; and immediately on the execution of the bill of sale the vendee becomes entitled to all the benefits and liabilities of ownership. (r) A ship is not like an ordinary chattel which passes by delivery; and there is no market overt for ships. The purchaser of a foreign ship is, therefore, bound to make inquiries as to the title, and will take subject to existing rights and equities. (s) '

1

650. Sale and transfer of tenants' fixtures and trade fixtures.-If an article affixed to the freehold is sold with a view to its immediate severance therefrom, the contract is simply a contract for the purchase and sale of a chattel. If it is not purchased with a view to immediate severance, the contract is then a contract for the sale and purchase of a fixture. A contract for the sale and fixing up in a dwelling-house of a copper

(2) Liverpool Borough Bank v.
Turner, 29 L. J., Ch. 827; 30 L. J.,
Ch. 379.
Chapman v. Callis, 30 L.
J., C. P. 241. Hughes v. Morris, 21
L. J., Ch. 761. Duncan v. Tindal, 22
L. J., C. P. 137; 13 C. B. 258

(r) The Spirit of the Ocean, 34 L. J., Ad. 74. Stapleton v. Haymen, 2 H. & C. 918; 33 L. J., Ex. 170.

(s) Hooper v. Gumm, L. R, 2 Ch. 282; 36 L. J., Ch. 282.

'And see as to ship-building contracts; Sanford v. Wiggins Ferry Co., 27 Ind. 522; Elliot v. Edwards, 6 Vroom, 265; Williams v. Jackman, 16 Gray, 514; Andrews v. Durant, 1 Kernan, 35; Briggs v. A Light Boat, 7 Allen, 287.

or a stove is not a contract for the sale of fixtures, but of goods and chattels, and for the performance of work and labor. If a contract is made for the erection upon the soil, or in a dwelling-house, of machinery, presses, &c., the contract is properly a contract for work and labor and the supply of materials. It is a contract for the erection, and not for the sale, of a fixture, and is the same in principle as a contract to erect a pillar or build a house. (t).

We have already seen that, by the grant of land, all fixtures attached to the soil and freehold and belonging to the grantor, pass with the land as accessorial thereto; and that, by the grant of a house, all things incident and accessorial to the building, pass, such as window-frames, windows, doors, and wainscots attached to the house, and furnaces, coppers, vats, and tables fastened to the walls or to the ground in the middle of the house, and all fixtures of every description annexed to the building and belonging to the grantor or landlord. (u) But tenants' fixtures and trade fixtures, which were put up by the tenant or occupier, and which the latter has a right to remove at the expiration of his tenancy or occupation, do not, of course, pass by the grant of the fee, unless the grantor is himself the occupier of the house and owner of the fixtures. The question as to what are and what are not tenants' or trade fixtures, removable by the occupier, and not forming part of the freehold and inheritance, principally arises between three classes of persons: 1st;-between different descriptions of

(t) Pinner v. Arnold, 2 Cr. M. & R. ó16.

(u) Longstaf v. Meagoe, 2 Ad. & E. 167. Birch v. Dawson, ib. 37. Hare v. Horton, 2 N. & M. 428; 5

B. & Ad. 715. Hitchman v. Walton, 4 M. & W. 414, 416. Mather v. Fraser, 2 Kay & J. 536; 25 L. J. Ch. 361.

representatives of the same owner of the inheritance. vi..., between his heir and executor. In this first case, the rule as to severance obtains with the most rigor in favor of the inheritance and against the right to disannex therefrom anything which has been affixed thereto. (v) 2ndly;-between the executors of tenant for life or in tail and the remainderman or reversioner; in which case the right to fixtures is considered more favorably for executors than in the preceding case between heir and executer. The 3rd case, and that in which the greatest latitude and indulgence have always been allowed in favor of the claim of severance, as against the claim in respect of freehold or inheritance, is the case between landlord and tenant. (w)'

(z) Fisher v. Dixon, 12 Cl. & Fin. 312.

1

(0) Elwes v. Maw, 3 East. 53. 14 & 15 Vict. c. 25.

The question as to what are fixtures is always a mixed question of fact and law; Campbell v. O'Neil, 64 Pa. St. 290; as to the principles governing the question as to what will be a fixture see Flanders v. Wood, 24 Wis. 527; Meigs' Appeal, 62 Pa. St. 28; Richardson v. Borden, 42 Miŝs. 71; Weathersby v. Sleeper, Id. 732; Perkins v. Swank, 43 Id. 349; Bartholemew v. Hamilton, 105 Mass. 239; Lampton v. Preston, 1 J. J. Marsh, 454; English v. Foote, 16 Miss. (18 Smedes & M.) 444; Wadleigh v. Janvrin, 41 N. H. 403; Potts v. New Jersey Arms &c. Co., 14 N. J. (2 Greenl.) 395 Ford v. Cobb, 20 N. Y. 344; Hill v. Wentworth, 28 Vt. 428; Teaff v. Hewitt, 1 Ohio, St. 511; Pickerell v. Carson, 8 Iowa, 544; State v. Bonham, 18 Ind. 231; Prescott v. Wells, 3 Nev. 82; Heaton v. Findlay, 12 Pa. St. 304; Gardner v. Finley, 19 Barb. 317; Providence Gas Co. v. Thurber, 2 R. I. 15; McClintock v. Graham, 3 McCord, 553; Hensley v. Brodie, 16 Ark. 511; a fixture, when lawfully severed, becomes personal property, and may be sued for in replevin; Heaton v. Findlay, 12 Pa. St. 304. What particular things are fixtures, is a question of mixed law and fact, and when one for the jury, they should be enabled to decide it by a clear explanation of the legal meaning of the word. Grand Lodge, &c. v. Knox, 27 Mo.

651. Authentication of contracts for the sale of fixtures. We have already seen that a contract for the sale of fixtures is not a contract for the sale of an

315. The tests usually to be applied are well stated in Voorhees v. McGinnis, 48 N. Y. 278, to be as follows: 1. Actual annexation of a permanent character, except in case of those articles not themselves annexed, but deemed to be of the freehold, from their use. 2. Adaptability to the use of the freehold. 3. The intention of the parties at the time of making the annexation; and, to the same effect, see Pea v. Pea, 35 Ind. 387; Eaves v. Estes, to Kan. 314; Funk v. Brigaldi, 4 Daly (N. Y.) 359. Subjoined is a catalogue of articles as to which the question has arisen or may arise, drawn principally from American reported cases. Addition to a House-see Buildings, House. Agricultural Erections-Dubois v. Kelly, 10 Barb. 496. Barn-Landon v. Platt, 34 Conn. 517. Bars-Farrar v. Stackpole, 6 Greenl. 154. Bell-Alvord, &c. M'f'g Co. v. Gleason, 36 Conn. 86. Boards -Whiting v. Barstow, 4 Pick. 310. Blower Pipe-Alvord, &c. M'f'g Co. v. Gleason, 36 Conn. 86. Boilers-Hill v. Hill, 43 Pa. St. 521. Bowling Alley-Hanrahan v. O'Reilly, 102 Mass. 201. Bricks-Lampton v. Preston, 1 J. J. Marsh, 454. Bridge Piers-Wagner v. Cleveland, &c. R. R. Co., 22 Ohio St.; Cowan v. Cowan, 12 Ohio St. 629; Northern, &c. R. R. Co. v. Canton, &c. R. R. Co. 30 Md. 347. Building-Kelly v. Austin, 46 Ill. 156; Richtmyer v. Moss, 4 Abb. App. Dec. (N. Y.) 55; Welgen v. Gettings, 21 Iowa, 177; see house, barn, mill. Building materials-Beard v. Durald, 22 La. Ann. 289. Carding machine-Graves v. Pierce, 53 Mo. 423; Taffe v. Warwick, 3 Blackf. 111; Walker v. Sherman, 20 Wend. 636; see Machinery. Chain-Farrar v. Stackpole, 6 Greenl. 154. Chande iers -Rodgers v. Crow, 40 Mo. 91. Chimney pieces; Peck v. Batchelder, 40 Vt. 233. Cisterns-Bletkin v. Towle, 40 Me. 310; Bainway v. Cobb, 99 Mass. 457; Wall v. Hinds, 4 Gray, 256. Coffee mills-Hill on Fixtures, 34. Cotton gin-Fairis v. Walker, 1 Bailey (S. C.) 540; McKenna v. Hammond, 3 Hill (S. C.) 331; Degraffenried v. Scruggs, 4 Humph. 231; Latham v. Blakeley, 70 N. C. 369; Bratton v. Classon, 2 Strobh. 478. Crops-Whipple v. Foot, 2 Johns. 418; Newcomb v. Raner, Id. 421 (note). Counters-Pope v. Garrard, 39 Ga. 471. Cupboards-Kempton v. Eve, 2 Ves. & B. 319. "Dogs"-Farrar v. Stackpole, 6 Greenl. 154. Doors-Philbrick v. Ewing, 97 Mass 133. Door step-Woodman v. Pease, 17 N. H. 282

interest in land, nor for the sale of goods and chattels A signed writing, consequently, is not necessary, as between vendor and purchaser, for the authentication

Engines-Rice v. Adams, 4 Har. 332; Sparks v. State Bank, 7 Blackf. 469; Trull v. Fuller, 28 Me. 545; Corliss v. Medagin, 29 Id. 115; Parsons v. Copeland, 38 Id. 537; Symonds v. Harris, 51 Id. 14; Sweetzer v. Jones, 35 Vt. 314; Witmer's Appeal, 45 Pa. St. 507; Murdock v. Harris, 20 Barb. 407; Union Bank v. Emerson, 15 Mass. 159; Richardson v. Copeland, 6 Gray, 536; Phillipson v. Mallanphy, 1 Mo. 620; Baker v. Davis, 19 N. H. 325; Buckley v. Buckley, 11 Barb. 43; Pyle v. Pennock, 2 Watts & S. 390; Voorhees v. Freeman, Id. 116; Oves v. Oglesby, 7 Watts, 106; Harlan v. Harlan, 15 Pa. St. 507; Roberts v. Dauphin Bank, 19 Id. 71; Christian v. Dripps, 28 Id. 271; Hull v. Alexander, 20 Id. 303; Leland v. Gassett, 17 Vt. 403. Evergreens-Empson v. Sodden, 4 B. & Ad. 655; Fences; Hines v. Ament, 43 Mo. 298; Gibson v. Vaughan, 2 Bailey (S. C.) 389; Smith v. Carrol, 4 Greene (Iowa) 146; Boon v. Orr, Id. 304; Glidden v. Bennett, 43 N. H. 306; Wentz v. Fincher, 12 Ired. 297; Robertson v. Phillips, 3 Iowa, 220; see rails. Fire Frames-Gaffield v. Hapgood, 17 Pick. 192. Fire Place Frames-Gaffield v. Hopgood, 17 Pick. 192. Floors-Philbrick v. Ewing, 97 Mass. 133. Flowers-Empson v. Sodden, 4 B. & Ad. 655. Fruit-Warren v. Leland, 2 Barb. 613; Kain v. Fisher, 2 Seld. 597; Bank of Lansingburgh v. Crary, 1 Barb. 542. Furnaces; Main v. Schwarzwaelder, 4 E. D. Smith, 273; Squier v. Mayer, Freem. Ch. 249. Gas fixtures-Montague v. Dent, 10 Rich. 135; Hays v. Doane, 10 N. J. Eq. (3 Stoct.) 84; Lawrence v. Kemp, 1 Duer, 363; Vaughen v. Haldeman, 33 Pa. St. 522; Philbrick v. Ewing, 97 Mass. 133; Rogers v. Crow, 40 Mo. 91; Gas Co. v. Thurber, 2 R. I. 15; Guthrie v. Jones, 108 Mass. 191. Gin House-Hancock v. Jordan, 7 Ala. 448; McDaniel v. Moody, 3 Stew. (Ala.) 314. Greenhouses-Penton v. Roberts, 2 East, 90. Grist MillPotter v. Cromwell, 40 N. Y. 287. Grass-Bank of Lansingburgh v. Crary, 1 Barb. 542; Warren v. Leland, 2 Id. 613; Kain v. Fisher, 2 Seld. 597. Gin Stands-Richardson v. Borden, 42 Miss. 71; Cole v. Roach, 37 Tex. 413. Grates-Hill on Fixtures, 34. Hangings-Peck v. Batchelder, 40 Vt. 233. HouseGibbs v. Estey, 15 Gray ,587; Foy v. Reddick, 31 Ind. 414; Bolling v. Whittle, 1 Ala. (Sel. Cas.) 268; Rogers v. Gillinger, 30 Pa. St. 185; Powers v. Dennison, 30 Vt. 752; Tyler v. Decker, Ic Cal. 435; Goff v. O'Connor, 16 Ill. 241; Reese v. Jared, 15

« AnteriorContinuar »