The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1896-12-12
WHEN B0LTED DOWN
MACHINERY MAY BE CONSIDERED
PART OF THE REALTY, In
LAW.
SUPREME COURT so RULES.
IN THE SAME
WAY.
THE ANGLo-AMERIcAN INITIATION.
terday In the District
Court.

Judge Canty, in the supreme court
late yesterday afternoon, handed down
a decision which is of interest to all
manufacturers using machinery, as
well as to all landlords whose tenants
use heavy engines.
The question came up for settlement
in the suit of Shepard VS.. Bios
som ct al whether certain machinery
was part of the realty or not.
The court holds that, while the in
tentfon in placing the machinery might
have been to make it permanent part
of the manufacturing plant for which
the realty was designed, that did not
make the machinery part of the real
ty of necessity. However, part of the
machines, those bolted to the floors
or walls of the buildings, as well as
| two ponderous machines weighing re-
spectively three and half and four
tons, were properly to be considered
as a part of the realty, as the lower
court held. The decision Of the lower
court is reversed, however, as to the
other machinery.
The syllabi of yesterdays decisions
are as follows:
William N. Shepard, respondent, vs. Francis
M. Blossom ct al, defendants; Francis M.
Blossom and John NJ. Carlson appellants.
The mortgagor constructed a series of bu Id
ings and placed certain machinery in the
same with tie intent and purpose of making
of all of the same manufacturing plant ana
used the same such. The court below
found that as between him and the mort
gage, all of this machinery is a part Of
the realty.
Held, the mere placing of the machinery
in position in the buildings with intent to
make 1t permanent part Of the manufacture
ing plant. does not make it a part of the
realty unless it is actually constructive!y
attached to the building land
Held further, the machines bolted to the
floors or posts of the buildings, either with
blocked to the floor, that which was held by
counter shaft, those which were braced
in the building and the two ponderous
chimes weighing respectively 31a and tons
resting on tie floor by their own weight were
sufficiently attached to the building that the
court below was justified in finding that
they are a part of the realty.
But, held, to the other machines which
do not appear to be heavy ponderous and
which were in no manner attached to the
building except by the bolts connecting them
with the pulleys on the shafting when in
operation, the court was not justified in find
ing that these are part of the realty. Or
DER mod1hed -Canty, ].
J. C. Eaton, respondent, vs.. Charles ]. Scho-
field, as auditor Of Houston county, appel
liant.
Syllabus. Section $780, General Statutes
1894, provides that when a tax sale is de-
clared void by Judgment of the court, stat
ing for what reason the sale is annulled the
amount peid the state at the tax sale or for
the tax title. shall be refunded with the in
terest thereon.
Held, this section does not apply to cases
where, as between the party purchasing the
tax title and the owner of the land such pur-
chase is merely payment of the taxes.
2. The party claiming refundment in this
case had title on which he would have pre-
vailed in the action in which the judgment
declaring the tax sales void entered, he
failed to prove this title, but relied wholly
on his tax titles.
Held, from these facts and other facts
stated in the opinion, it conclusively appears
that he was guilty of bad faith toward the
state or such gross neglect that bad faith
must be imputed to him. and that he is
not on such judgment entitled to refundment.
Judgment reversed and new trial granted.
-Canty, ].
Levi Hargreaves, respondent, VS.. Charles D.
! Reese ct al, defendant; The First National
Bank of Conneautville, appellant.
| Syllabus-Held that evidence justifies the
| special verdict of the jury, finding that the
chattel mortgage in question incomplete on
i It's face) was never delivered to the mortgage
| as an executed instrument that conclusively
| disposes of the case and renders it imma-
terial whether the general verdict is sus-
| tanned by the evidence the other issues.
Held, the court below did not err in ad-
hitting secondary evidence of the contents Of
certain writing. Order affirmed.
-Canty, ].
Sturtevant-Larrabee Company, appellant. VS..
Mart Buford & Burwell Company ct al.
defendants, respondents; Remington Arms
Company, Griggs Foster ct al, inter
venors, appellants; Sturtevant-Larrabee
Company res pendent, vs.. Mast. Buford &
Burwell Company ct al. defendants re-
| spondents; Waterloo Wagon Company in
tervenor, appellant
| Following Minneapolis Paper company vs.
| Swineburne Printing company held where
| the assets of corporation, not a moneyed
| corporation, have been sequestered by an
! assignment under the insolvency law an
| action may be maintained by a simple con-
| tract creditor on behalf of himself and all
other creditors, under chapter rs, General
| Statutes 1894 to enforce the constitutional
liability OF the stockholders of the corpora
! ton.
| Held. cause Of action under the third
| subdivision of section 1900 General Statutes
/ 1894, against the officers of the corporation
! for their fraud. unfaithfulness or di@honesty.
resulting in. loss to the particular creditor
cannot properly be Joined with cause of
action to enforce such constitutional liza
bility of the stockholders, for this reason be.
| the proposed amended complaint and the pro-
posed bill were demurrable for ms
| joiner OF causes of action and the court be -
properly refused to allow either to be fled
or served. Order affirmed. -Canty, ].
James H. RoweT substituted in place of
/ &C: ahyford, respondent, VS.. E. B. zier,
j It snpellant.
/ + Where the defendant appealed to the DIS
| triet court from Judgment AGAINST him in
/ the Justices court. but no return was ever
| filed in the district court and the appeal
was dismissed. held. under the provisions of
section i'll. chapter S.. General Statutes 1878
| (section SOL. General Statute 1894 as amend
] ed by chapter "a laws of 1895 TIE district
i court had in the absence of return 10
/ authority such dismissal to enter against
| defendant a Judgment Of afirmance lin which
| is included TIE supposed amount Of the iudg-
ment in the justices COURT. JUDGMENT re-
versed. -Canty J.
DEMEsTERE's SUIT DRAGs.