Case ID: mich_49/html/0034-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Maeston, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Johann Kuschell et al. v. Gregory J. Campau.
    
      Lease — Chattel mortgage security.
    
    A clause in a lease, stipulating toy way of securing the payment of rent, that “all goods, wares and merchandise, household furniture, fixtures or other property which are or shall toe placed in or on said premises by them, shall be liable, and this lease shall constitute a lien or mortgage on said property,” does not cover the dwelling house upon the premises.
    General terms in a clause describing property encumbered thereby are limited to the class of property specified.
    Error to "Wayne.
    Submitted June 21.
    Decided June 27.
    Trespass. Defendants bring error.
    Affirmed.
    
      Wittiam S. Thomas and Henry M. Oheever for appellants.
    A house erected on a leased lot is personal property: 1 Washb. R. P. 133; Smith v. Benson 1 Hill 176; Goodenow v. Allen 68 Me. 308; and where parties treat fixtures as personal property, the law will so consider them as between such parties: Ford v. Cobb 20 N. Y. 344; Tifft v. Horton 53 N. Y. 377; Godard v. Gould 14 Barb. 662; Shell v. Haywood 16 Penn. St. 523; Hensley v. Brodie 16 Ark. 511; Gooding v. Riley 50 N. H. 400; personalty is not merged in realty where there is no unity of title: Adams v. Lee 31 Mich. 440 ; Kerr v. Kingsbury 39 Mich. 150; one who gives a chattel mortgage on fixtures is -estopped from denying that they are personalty: Smith v. Waggoner 50 Wis. 155; Denham v. Sankey 38 Ia. 269.
    
      Wilhmson, Post <& Wilkmson for appellee.
   Maeston, J.

Plaintiffs brought an action of trespass to recover damages for the taking and removing a part of their ■dwelling-house from off lands owned by them.

The defendant’s claim of right to remove the same was based upon a chattel mortgage clause in a lease of a certain .•other lot upon which this house then stood, to secure payment of the rent.

Giving this so-called mortgage full force and effect, still ¡the defendants had no right to this house thereunder, for .the very good reason that this house was not included ¡therein. The parties agreed that “all goods, wares and merchandise, household furniture, fixtures or other property which are or shall be placed in or on said premises by them, shall, be liable, and this lease shall constitute a lien or mortgage on said property,” etc.

The general terms herein used are restrained and limited ito the particular kinds of property mentioned immediately preceding. This is a well-settled rule of construction, .applicable alike to contracts and statutes, and is decisive of ihe present controversy.

The judgment must be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.