This case laid down the principle to distinguish between fixtures and chattels
Facts of the Case
George Mason, who was the owner of a mill mortgaged the mill together with all of the fixtures to the plaintiff on 7 April 1869. On 3 July 1869, the owner assigned all of his property to a trustee (“the defendant”) under the bankruptcy provisions. The defendant after taking possession of the owner properties, sold the things inside the mill.
The plaintiff claimed that the looms, which are machines for weaving worsted stuff and other fabrics placed in various room in the mill were passed to the plaintiff together with the property through the mortgage. These looms were attached to the floor by nailing it to a wooden attachment or beams of wood to keep the looms steady when operating. The looms could be easily removed without any serious injury to the floors. The defendant contended that the looms were not fixed to the mill as to be fixtures because the purpose was merely for its convenient use as chattels which retains its independence.The claimant was granted an order at first instance and the defendant appealed.
Issue of the Case
Whether the looms were fixtures or chattels?
Judgment of the Case
The general rule is that what is annexed to the land becomes part of the land. However, what constitute an annexation sufficient for this purpose depends on the circumstances of each case. The two circumstances which indicating the intention are the degree of annexation and the object of the annexation.
If an article is not further attached to the land other than by its own weight, it is generally considered a mere chattel. However, if the intention is clear to make the article part of the land, it will become part of the land. For instances, stone blocks placed on top of another without any mortar or cement for the purpose of forming a dry stone wall would become part of the land but the same stone blocks if were to be deposited and conveniently stacked on form of a wall, it would still remain as chattels.
On the other hand, an article may be very firmly fixed to the land, and yet the circumstances may be such as to show that it was never intended to be part of the land, and then it does not become part of the land. An example of this type of article would be the anchor of a large ship. It needs to be firmly fixed in the ground in order to prevent the ship from drifting but it does not make the ship part of the land. In comparison, an anchor of a suspension bridge fixed on the ground would become part of the land.
The Court held that an articles not otherwise attached to the land than by their own weight are not to be considered as part of the land, unless the circumstances are such as to show that they were intended to be part of the land, the onus of showing that they were so intended placed on those who assert that they have ceased to be chattels, and that, on the contrary, an article which is affixed to the land even slightly is to be considered as part of the land, unless the circumstances are such as to show that it was intended all along to continue a chattel, the onus of prove lies on those who contend that it is a chattel.
The Court concluded that the tenant bought the looms for use in his mill and the attachment was for the use of the factory as a mill and therefore, the looms were fixtures and were passed by the mortgage as part of the property to the plaintiff. Thus, the appeal was dismissed.
Principle of the Case
An article which is affixed to the land even slightly is to be considered as part of the land, unless the circumstances are such as to show that it was intended all along to continue a chattel Principle: articles affixed to the land, even the slightest, is considered as part of the land.
Comentarios