Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

of the contract. Where fixtures have been sold at a price to be ascertained by valuation, if, after the valuation has been made and delivered to the purchaser,

Ind. 142; Leland v. Gassett, 17 Vt. 403; Clark v. Rayburn, I Kans. 281; Higgins v. Riddell, 12 Wis. 587; Pullen v. Bell, 40 Me. 314; Hemminway v. Cutler, 51 Id. 407; Schemmer v. North, 32 Mo. 206; Wells v. Banister, 4 Mass. 514; Taylor v. Townsend, 8 Id. 411; Washburn v. Sprout, 16 Id. 449; Fuller v. Taylor, 39 Me. 519; Washburn v. Shroat, 16 Mass. 449; Stillman v. Hamer, 8 Miss. (7 How.) 421; Fisher v. Saffer, 1 E. D. Smith, 611; Reid v. Kirk, 12 Rich. 54; Curtis v. Riddle, 7 Allen, 185; Howard v. Fessenden, 14 Id. 124; Lacy v. Gibboney, 36 Mo. 320; Dame v. Dame, 38 N. H. 429; White's Appeal, 10 Pa. St. 252; Curtiss v. Hoyt, 19 Conn. 154; Burnside v. Twitchell, 43 N. H. 390; Sturgis v. Warren, 11 Vt. 433; Taffe v. Warwick, 3 Blackf. III. Hop Poles-Bishop v. Bishop, Kern. 123. Hospital (Military)-Meigs' Appeal, 62 Pa. St. 28. Ice Chest-Park v. Baker, 7 Allen, 78. KeysWalker v. Sherman, 20 Wend. 636. Kettles-Hunt v. Mullanphy, Mo. 508. Locks-Walker v. Sherman, 20 Wend. 636. Looms-Murdock v. Harris, 20 Barb. 407. MachineryHatchman's Appeal, 27 Pa. St. 209; Cape v. Romeyne, 4 McLean, 384; Tibbetts v. Moore, 23 Cal. 208; Swift v. Thompson, 9 Conn. 63; Murdock v. Gifford, 18 N. Y. 28; Hovey v. Smith, 1 Barb. 372; Bartlett v. Wood, 32 Vt. 373; Vanderpoel v. Van Allen, 10 Barb. 157; Goddard v. Gould, 14 Id. 662; Voorhees v. McGinnis, 46 Id. 157; Childress v. Wright, 2 Coldw. 350; Fullam v. Stearns, 30 Vt. 443. Manure-Daniels v. Pond, 21 Pick. 367; Middlebrook v. Corwin, 15 Wend. 169; Lassell v. Reed, 6 Greenl. 222; Sawyer v. Twiss, 6 Foster (N. H.) 345; Staples v. Emery, 7 Greenl. 201. Materials-see Building Materials. Mills-Burnside v. Twitchell, 43 N. H. 390; Martin v. Cope, 28 N Y. 180. Organs-Rogers v. Crow, 40 Me. 91; Coolis v. McLagin, 29 Me. 115. Ornaments-

Peck v. Batchelder, 40 Vt. 233. Out-houses-Dubois v. Kelty, 10 Barb. 496. Partitions-Hill on Fixtures, 34. Pipe--see Blower Pipe. Poles-see Hop Poles. Pumps-McKracken v. Hall, 7 Port. (Ind.) 30; Ex-parte Quincey, 1 Atk. 447; Grymes v. Boweren, 6 Bing. 437. Rails see Fences; Robertson v. Phillips, 3 Iowa, 220. Railroads--Farmers' Loan, &c. Co. v. Creditors, &c., 20 Law Rep. 678; Coe v. Pennock, cited Red. on Railw. § 235 (n); Palmer v. Forkes, 23 Ill. 300. Rolls-Johnson v. Mehaffey, 43 Pa. St. 308. Safes-Folger v

the latter takes possession of the fixtures, or exercises dominion over them, he will be deemed to have adopted the valuation and assented to the price as ascertained by the brokers. (x) Where the owner of a lease of a house, and of certain fixtures in the house gave a memorandum to the plaintiff to the following effect:-"In consideration of W. T. (the plaintiff) discounting for me a bill of exchange for £80, I have assigned to him the whole of the fixtures, as per inventory," &c., it was held that the property in the fixtures passed by this note to the plaintiff. (y)

(x) Salmon v. Watson, 4 Moore, 73. (y) Thompson v. Pettitt, 10 Q. B.

ΙΟΙ.

Kenner, 24 La. Ann. 436. Salt Pans-Mansfield v. Blackburn, 6 Bing. (N. C.) 426. Scales-Bliss v. Whitney, 9 Allen, 114. Scantling-Woyes v. Terry, 1 Lans. (N. Y.) 219. Shrubs-Miller v. Baker, Metc. 27. Sign Post-Redlon v. Barker, 4 Kan. 445. Signs-Redlon v. Barker, 4 Kan. 445. Sink-Bainway v. Cobb, 99 Mass. 457. Steam Engines-see Engines. StillsCrenshaw v. Crenshaw, 2 Hen. & M. (Va.) 22; Burk v. Baxter, 3 Mo. 207; Moore v. Smith, 24 Ill. 512; Terry v. Robbins, 13 Miss. (5 Sen. & M.) 291; Bryan v. Lawrence, 5 Jones (N. C.) L. 337; Fernster v. Johnson, 64 N. C. 259. Statue (in a garden)--Snedeker v. Warring, 2 Kern. 170. Stoves--Tuttle v. Robinson, 33 N. H. 104; Goddard v. Chase, 7 Mass. 432; Blethen v. Towle, 40 Me. 310. Stables-Green v. First Parish, 10 Pick. 500; Dubuis v. Kelly, 10 Barb. 496. Statuary-Snedeker v. Warring, 2 Kern. 170. Sun Dial-Id. Tables-Hill on Fixtures, 341. Trade Annexations--House v. House, 10 Paige, 158 (see the various titles, Machinery, &c.). Trees--Mitchell v. Billingsley, 17 Ala. 391; Price v. Brayton, 19 Iowa, 309; Maples v. Milton, 31 Conn. 598; Byassee v. Reese, 4 Metc. (Ky.) 372; Branch v. Morrison, 6 Jones (N. C.) L. 16; King v. Wilcomb, 7 Barb. 263; Miller v. Baker, 1 Metc. 27. Vats--Horn v. Baker, 9 East, 215; Reynolds v. Shuler, 5 Cow. 323; Burk v. Baxter, 3 Mo. 207. Verandahs-Penry v. Brown, 2 Stark. N. P. C. 403. Water Pipes-Philbrick v. Ewing, 97 Mass. 133. Waterwheels-House v. House, 10 Paige, 158. Windlass-Capen v. Peckham, 35 Conn. 88. Window Blinds-Peck v. Batchelder, 40 Vt. 233; Green v. First Parish, 10 Pick. 500. WindowsState v Eliot, 11 N. H. 504; Philbrick v. Ewing, 97 Mass. 133.

SECTION III.

THE SALE OF INCORPOREALS.

652. Grants and transfers of incorporeal rights and incorporeal hereditaments, such as rights of common, rights of way or water-course, advowsons, tithes, rents, annuities, and profits issuing out of land, must, in order to be valid and irrevocable at common law, be made by deed. (z) Thus a right to take tolls for the passage of a ferry or a bridge must be trans ferred by deed. (a)' A right to go upon another man's land, as to remove fixtures, (b) or to shoot and sport over a manor, or to fish in the waters thereof, whether it be a mere license of pleasure authorizing the licensee to take, but not to carry away, or a license of profit authorizing him both to take and carry off, the game or the fish, is an incorporeal right lying in grant, and can only be created by deed. (c) A parol license or permission will, so long as it has not been countermanded, justify an entry upon the land; (d) but it can confer no indefeasible right, and may be recalled at the pleasure of the grantor, unless a valuable consideration has been given and received for it, so as to give the licensee a right to the enjoyment of the privilege. But, although the right itself can not be created at common

(s) Bac. Abr. Grants, E. Co. Litt. 9 a, 42 a. 14 Vin. Abr. Grant G. (a). 2 Roll. Abr. Grant (G). Jones v. Robin, 12 Jur. 308.

(a) Reg. v. Marquis of Salisbury 8 Ad. & E. 739

(6) Ruffey v. Henderson, 21 L. J.. Q. B. 51.

(c) Duke of Somerset v. Fogwell, 5 B. & C. 875; 8 D. & R. 747. Bird v. Higginson, 2 Ad. & E. 696. Thomas v. Fredericks, 16 L. J., Q. B. 393 Ewart v. Graham, 7 H. L. C. 331; 29 L. J. Ex. 88.

(d) Feltham v. Cartwright, 7 Se 695.

'Washburr on Real Property, vol. 2, p. 21.*

law, so as to be indefeasible, without deed, yet a landowner may, by a writing satisfying the Statute of Frauds,' agree to allow another to come upon his land and take a profit from the soil, or to exercise and enjoy thereon certain privileges, and will be responsible in damages, if he interrupt such enjoyment. (e) And, if a landowner gives a parol license or permission to another to enjoy some profit or privilege on the land of the licensor necessarily involving the expenditure of money for its enjoyment, and the licensor stands by and allows the licensee to expend his money on the land in reliance on the promised enjoyment of the privilege, the license can not afterwards be withdrawn without tendering the licensee compensation for his expenditure. (ƒ) Where a colliery proprietor, wanting to construct a railway across the defendant's land wrote a letter to the defendant, offering him a fair price for the land, and, getting no answer to his letter, and supposing that he had a right, under the powers of a local Act, to make the railway, entered upon the defendant's land, and constructed earthworks and formed a railway, and used it for three or four years with the acquiescence of the defendant, and the parties afterwards met to settle the price that was to be paid for the land, and, not being able to agree upon it, the defendant brought an action of ejectment, the Court of Chancery granted an injunction to restrain the defendant from obstructing or interfering with the plaintiff's use of the railway, on such a sum of money being paid into court as would constitute a sufficient security to the defendant for the price of the land. (g)

(e) Smart v. Jones, 15 C. B., N. S. 717; 33 L. J., C. P. 154.

(f) Ramsden v. Dyson, L. R., 1 H. L. 170, Clavering's Case, 5 Ves. 690.

(g) Powell v. Thomas, 6 Hare, 300. Laird v. Birkenhead Railway Company, I Johns. 500; 29 L. J., Ch.

218.

Ante, vol. 1, p. 296, et seq.

So, also, when a party has agreed to pay a certain sum for a license of profit, and has had the benefit and enjoyment of the license, it is no answer, in an action for the money agreed to be paid, to say that the license was not under seal. Therefore, where an action was brought for a sum of money agreed to be paid for the use and enjoyment of a license to fish, it was held that the defendant could not resist the action on the ground that the license was not under seal. (h) And where the defendant by memorandum in writing agreed with the plaintiff, for a valuable consideration, to permit the plaintiff to enter upon the defendant's land for the purpose of gathering cinders, it was held to be no answer to an action for a breach of this agreement, to set up that it was not under seal. (i) A parol license to enjoy an easement over or upon the soil and freehold of another, is at once determined by a transfer of the property; and the grantee of the license is consequently a trespasser, if he afterwards enters upon the land in the exercise and enjoyment of his supposed right, although he has received no notice of the transfer. (j)

A mere license of pleasure amounts only to a personal contract, or to an ordinary covenant between the parties, and does not transfer to the licensee or his heirs any right over, or interest in, the soil and freehold of the licenser. "If one license me and my heirs to come and hunt in his park, I must have a writing (that is a deed) of that license; for a thing passes by the license which endures in perpetuity; but if he license me one time to hunt, this is good without

(h) Holford v. Pritchard, 3 'Exch.

793.

(2) Smart v. Jones, ante.

(j) Wallis v. Harrison, 4 M. & W.

539. Russell v. Harford, L. R., 2 Eq 507. Roberts v. Rose, L. R., 2 Ex 82; 35 L. J. Ex. 62.

« AnteriorContinuar »