244 

OFFICE OFTHE ATTORNEYGENERAL OFTEXAS 

AUSTIN 

8lsns w APtiae 

6, rhluh read0 

as follovs, 

ati 6uPplltm In f&o 

be law&l In its se&l 

d aorpQretion shall 

lied to the State B*nldng Board 

ger&wlon to make a 

ants rillowadhe!Wunder~ 

sslen shall be entered 

amgularmt3etLng Of 

seia banking oarporation.6 

*A banking corporation reamtlg inoorporated uWaF the 

laws of this State, had.zq a aa@tal etoek ef $!3S,OOO,OO, 

surplus OS $10~~00.00 and debeaturee outetaznW& in the 
245 

iionorable Lee hrady - we 2 

costing $2 *295 .oo. It has also installed a vault door 

at a Cost of !$SOO.OO, Venitian blinds at a cost of 

$71.20 and a Xeon sign at the entranae of the ouotoxers* 

vault at a ooet of $20.00. These items have been ndiled 

to the cost of tiie buildiug, nskln& a total 0P $l!J,lS9.l2, 

at which f'igurti the building is aarried on the books of 

the bank. This hank has invested In amvablc fl.xturso a 

sux equal to 15% 0P its oapltal and surplue. 

alho bauk has taken the position that the built-in xarble 

fixtures above mentioned heving been ooustruafod on brlok 

walle, constitute a part of the buildlug and, therefore, 

are not fixturee within the plrview of Article 6j.2 above 

tintioned. The fame poeition ie taken tfth reference to 

the vault door, Venltlan blinda and Beon aigu. 

*Please adv& whether or not them marble fixturea, this 

vault door, blinds and sign are *fAxture6i* u&thin the purvier of Artiole Sl2, or whether they Coustitute a part 

of the bapldne house within the meanIn& oi that Statute.* 

Pour inquiry ie incapable of a derin.&te or flual 

nn8wer one way or the other, for the reaaous hereinafter 

etatod. 

Zhe term Vixtures*, in legal contemplation, 

ordinarily means thoee articles or things that are peruanantly attached to the laud, with the iotention that 

they abould become a part thereof. Obvimely, the word 

is not ueed in this muse in the bauk statute, but rather 

it is used in the sense ~of personal property comaonly 

known aa atrade Bxture8*. These trade f?xturee may, 

and In nm5t inetanoes do, con&at 0P articles ~uaaable 

of perxanout attachment to the Land, but on tbs other 

baud, they are llk%oi.se equally sapable of use a6 personal proyerty , with no intention whatwer of pemanently attaohing them to the realty. 

The Biatter is not determined by any rule of 

physical or structural attaohment of the Pixture to the 

land, such #ysica.l attaobmant, and the extent aud nature 

thereof, aPe merely clmm5stan ocs tendlng to evtienoe the 

real intenti-on of the person or persons WVI%~~ the build5,ng md the fixtures. sa& and wery artlole mentioned 

by you may, preeent the proper intention, become aod be a 
honorable Lee Brady - psgo 3 

part of the building, and therefore a part of' the lad. 

On the other hand, each and avery at%iole mentioned by 

you, prseant such an intention , may become and be trade 

fixtures -- personal property -- and not a part of the 

buLlding in whioh thay are locatsd, and to whhioh they 

may even be to sop10 extent phyeloally attsohed. 

Aa early as tlutchina v. tiaatsraon, 40 Tex. 

661(3877) our BupFeme Court said; 

'It is said, the weight of the uodern 

authorities establlah the doctrine tbst the 

true criterion for deteradnlng whether a 

chattel has become an iamovabla fixture, aonslsta in the united applfcstion of the Pollowing tester 

"lat. has there been a real or constructive annexation of the artiole in quoat&on to the realty? 

'26. Uaa there a fitness or adsptatlon 

of such article to the use6 or pzrposea of 

the realty with whish it is connectadt 

"3cz. Uhether or not it was the intsntion of the @rty making tha snnexation that 

the chattel abould beaome a permanent aaaemalon to the freekoldt - this intention being 

Inferable Prom the nature of the article, 

the rsletion and situation of the parties 

interested, the policy of the law in respect 

thereto, the mode of annexa tion, aad plrposs 

or use for which the snnexation is made. 

"And of' thcae thrse teats, preemtaencs 

is to be given to the question of intention 

to ma&e the artiole a permanent aoseaaion 

to the freehold, whlls tha others are ohiefly of value as evidanoe as to this intention. 

(&%311 on Fixtures, 21, 22.)" 

In Moody v. Aiken, 50 Tex. $a (lW73) a banksr(s 

safe was involvad, and while tba safe itself was not eesurad 

to the buflbing, it waa, however, enaloosd withln the malla 

of a vault in such way as it could not be remwed. tithout 
tlonorableLeeYrady-page4 

destroying the walls In part, and was thus effeotually 

ma&faftftau the building. In that oaee the Supreme 

Vore reoent declsiohs have, however, 

to 803118 extent, brought order out of this 

confusion, and have established for our 

guidance oertain rules Sounded on reason 

am oustom. These make the true test of 

a removable flnture at least to depcmd not 

so vaxh on the m3re taot of *a ligature, a 

bolt, or a acre+ a6 upon constructive annexation, the intention of the party in making the same, and the relation which the 

artiole bears to the uses of the freehold.* 

. The oourtfurther adds* 

Wzxler the authority OS the ease OS 

Sutehine ve. liastereon and others aited 

above, the intention of the parties bedomes a controlling element in the detorm&nation of the question whether a particrular annexation has or has not aeeumed 

the oharaoter of a f'lxture*, and affirmed the judgment 

of the trial oourt, holding the safe to be peraonalty and 

not a part of the realty. 

In the ease of Inge Y. First State Bank of Donton, 

67 8. 8. (2) 217, involting a timt#-lock deer to a vault 

used by a bank, Juatiae Lattimore said; 

*The obligation of the appellee by 

ita lease was to return the building 

'lls it nor is.' Ue are thus relogat%d 

to the rules izl Hutahhs Y. bisetsrson, 

46 Tex. 554, 26 &u. Rep. 266. The ru13s 

therein set out, when read in the light 

of bioG6.y VS. diken, 60 73X. 66, mak% it 

plain that our rule of publLc polio7 and 

in favor of trade and to enoourage industry encoura&~ the tenant to install 

trade f&xturos which, if sreated for a 

mere temporary purpose and without any 

intention on the part OS the tenant that 

fame besome a p8rt of ti3 realty, and IS 
ii3nwable Leo Mwdy - page 2 

not so attached as to begoms a part thereof, 

maybe removed. It is the intention which 

is the important factor, hems tb3 erfdenoe 

of the bank officials that appellee did not 

Intend for the articles to beoome a part of 

ths realty. This testimony was admissible, 

but it was not arcluslve; *the intentton belng inferable from the nature of the artiole, 

the situation of the psrtios interested, the 

mode of annexation, the oiroumstanosa vhioh 

require the installation and the use to be 

made thereof.* 

The court then heltl: 

l Ths time lock dooraod the bank cages 

and windows are trade f&&urea. a~@ OS suah 

the tenant is entitled to C3mwe then. It 

is of no importanae that the aloeet door 

(hold to be roalty) mat&he8 in appearanae 

the oages, but it is of importance that the 

the lock door is espeoially a bank vault 

doer. The one Uor is not a trade fixture, 

the other Is.~ 

See aleo, Dallas Joint Btock Land Bank t.Lancaster, 106 6. W1. (2) 1929) Clark YO Clark, 107 6. W. (2) 

421. 

Tikeae 09308 are cit.& and quotsd for the ptrpoee 

of empha~iziug the fact that the matter of classification 

of the fixture is largely if not altogether one of intention . By ~intention~ we mean, of oourse, the intention of 

the party ,putting in or install$ng the fixture. 

PI-0~3 what we have said, it followa that if the 

bank in question in oonstmoting its btilding plaaed or fnstalled its narble fixtures, cages, vault door, Venetian 

blirxls itnii Neon oipp, intending at ttle time that these 

tbing,s should be a permanent part of the building, they 

would be such in law. This presents a queetion of fact 

which you are auUloriead to determine from the evidence before 

you. 1n this conneotion, we will say that auoh fact queation should be doter&n&l from all the faots an5 circusstanoes surrauxxiing the eitmti.on, and not alone by the 

mre pesmt statewmt of' the Board members who oonstrucf- 
Pomorable Lee irr%dy - page 6 

ed the building;. The faot that the bank has amried 

on its books the banking house at a value to Include 

the oost of these Mxtur~a , is a cogent olraumatanee 

supporting the present oontention of the hank with 

reseronoe to the oh%ractar of the fixtures, or in 

other words, with respect to the intantion of the 

b%nk at the time the building v%a constructed and 

the fixtures inatall3d. 

Under date of J%nu%ry 8, lQg+t, the vriter of 

this opinion, then counsel to the Bw Ctnmnlaeloner, 

advised your Department with reapeot to the statue o? % 

bank vault door %s % r3al fixture or trod3 fixture, a 

oopy of shioh opinion is before us, %nd % ooy~ ot whleh 

you luay have if the original is hot %va&lable to you at 

thistime. 

Trusting that what we hare said vi11 be a auffici3nt 3nsver to your inquiry, vs 3rs 

Verytlulyyoure