Opinion · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Pierce v. George
Pierce v. George, 108 Mass. 78 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1871)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
- Jurisdiction
- Massachusetts
- Date
- 1871-10-15
- Topic
- estate-planning
Ames, J. In ascertaining what are fixtures, the object, the effect and the mode of annexation are to be considered. Me*82Laughlin v. Nash, 14 Allen, 136. The question between these parties is governed by the rules which apply to the case of mortgagor and mortgagee; the defendant claiming the contested property by virtue of a mortgage of the real estate, and the plaintiffs under an earlier conveyance from the mortgagor, in which the machinery is described as personal property.
Citator
- Cited by
- 27 opinions
In ascertaining what are fixtures, the object, the effect and the mode of annexation are to be considered. Me
By this rule the large punch, the three polishing frames, the three vibrators, the polisher, the fan-blower, and the pulleys, shafting and hangers, appear from the auditor’s report to have been annexed to the freehold and specially adapted to be used in connection with it. They therefore became part of the machine shop, and could not be severed from it without the defendant’s consent. The two small punches, although not so firmly attached to the building, appear to us to fall within the same rule. The wheels belonging to the polishing frames come somewhat near to
But the lathes fastened to a bench by screws, and operated by a foot movement; the five grindstones resting upon frames standing upon the floor; the rattler and frame, the tack machines, the slitter, the anvils, the vises, the lathes, and the portable forge, are none of them fixtures in any sense of the word. For the value of these articles, to be determined by an assessor,
The plaintiffs are entitled to judgment.