Case ID: mass_7/html/0360-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William Goddard versus Nathan W. Chase.
    Iron stoves fixed to the brick work of the chimneys of a house are a part of the house, and pass with it, on the extent of an execution upon it.
    This action was trespass for breaking and entering the plaintiff’s house in Standish, and taking from the chimneys of said house two cast-iron stoves, the property of the plaintiff, in the same house being, and tearing, pulling down, and demolishing the fire-places in said house, &c.
    The cause was tried upon the general issue, with liberty to give any special matter in evidence, at an adjournment of the last May term in this county, before Thatcher, J., and a verdict taken for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the Court upon the following facts reported by the judge : —
    The stoves were taken, as stated in the plaintiff’s declaration. The dwelling-house, from which they were taken, had previously been set off to the plaintiff, as the property of the defendant, by appraisement, to satisfy, in part, an execution which the plaintiff held against the defendant. The house had been built and occupied many years, but the stoves had not been placed in it more than six months before the extent of the said execution. The defendant being absent on a journey when the execution was levied, upon his return went into the house, to take away sundry articles of furniture, and at the same time took and carried away the said stoves. The appraisers, appointed on the levying of the execution, considered the stoves as fixtures belonging to the house, and made their appraisement accordingly.
    
      Kinsman, for the defendant,
    cited the case of Harvey vs. Harvey, 
       where it was adjudged that iron backs to [ * 433 ] * chimneys, among other things, belonged to the executor, as personal estate.
    
      Storer for the plaintiff.
    
      
       2 Str. 1141.
    
   Per Curiam.

There can be no doubt that these stoves were a part of the house, and passed with it to the plaintiff by the levy of his execution; and so it appears the appraisers considered them The defendant, then, had no right to sever them from the freehold; and in doing it he was a mere trespasser,

Judgment on the verdict. 
      
       [There can be no doubt that the stoves were not fixtures. — Ed.]
     
      
       Vide 4 Co. 62, Herlakenden’s case.—1 Salk. 368, Poole’s case