Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1909-12-01
REscRIPTs.
Continued from Page Nine.)

premises with the intention Of making it
| theiT home and lived thereon until on or
| bout October s, 1908
Said Joseph with the purpose of making
| the place more comfortable for use, pro-
| cured the outside windows and doors to
| be made for the house and specially fitted
| to it, the doors and windows being pre-
Pared in the usual manner for fastening
| to the house by means of screws passing
through hinges on the doors and into the
frame of the door casing, and by means
of screws passing through the double
WirdOW-frames and into the window cas-
ings Of the house Each window-frame
was fitted to a particular window casing
| on the building. and the window castings
We're numbered consecutively from
upwards. and the double windows were
numbered to correspond. so that it might
| lie readily determined to which window
cas- sing each outside or double window
was designed to be attached and used.
Said outside doors and windows were at
and used on the house during each winter
that it was occupied by said Roderick,
anC up to October s. 1903. In the spring
of each year they were removed and
where they remained until attached to
the house the next winter when they
would be replaced in their respective
places on the building until the following
spring.
1t also appears that in February 1907,
when the plaintiff mortgaged the prem
ises to the defendant, the doors and win
dows were then actually attached to the
house; and that in October 1905 when
the plaintiff conveyed the premises to
the defendant by warranty deed. the
doors and windows were then upon the
premises in the stable chamber.
The only question involved is whether
the windows and doors under this state
ment Of facts became part of the realty
so that the title vested in the defendant
under his deed of the premises, or re-
manned personal property the title to
which did not pass with the deed.
Whatever the early understanding it is
has become a part of the realty is IA
mixed question of law and fact In the
case before us the facts are admitted
and from these facts is to be inferred
windows. 1t is now generally conceded
that the old tests of physical character
of annexation is discarded. and the mod
ern trend of authority is adverse to any
arbitrary or fixed rule. by which it may
be determined whether a chattel is or is
not a fixture. 1t is now. however, held
that a chattel is not merged in the realty
unless. in the language of Hayford V
Wentworth, 81 Maine, 94.. "a it is physi-
cally annexed, at least by juxtapostion
to the realty or some appurtenances
thereof; (2) it is adapted to and disable
with that part of the realty to which it is
annexed and (3) it was annexed with the
intention on the part of the person max
ing the annexation to make it perma-
nCnt accession 10 Ine realty. see dlSo
Cyc. 49, 1896. In order to meet the first of
these conditions it is not necessary that
the chattel should be physically fas-
tened to the realty at all times. There
may be constructive well as actual an
neXdtion
To establish the requirements of the
second condition it is necessary to show
that the doors and windows were adapted
to and used with that part of the realty
to which they were annexed. DISCUSSION
upon this proposition would be superflu-
Gus. The agreed statement is conclusive
1t conceiveS that said Joseph with the
purpose of making the place more COM
Portable for use, procured outside Win
dows and doors to be made for the house
and specially fitted to it.. The rest of the
para graph empha sizes the proof of adap-
liability but this is sufficient.
The third and most important element
to be esta blished tending to prove that
chattel has been merged into fixture
is the intention with which the party
provided its use. We think the inference
from the agreed facts IS conclusive upon
this point \ chattel need not be abso-
lutely necessary to the completeness of
the dwelling house if obviously adapted
and intended to be used with it. Balm
way v Cobb. 80 Mass. 45I. Storm doors
and outside windows cannot now be re-
garded merely as c0nveniences or lux
uries as they not only add to the COM
fort of the occupants of a house but
have quite an important economical bear
ing in saving expense for wood and coal
We cannot avoid the conclusion that
for permanent use with the house. added
to the value of its use and Injured to the
benefit of the estate.
Judgment for the defendant