Case Name: FITZGIBBONS BOILER CO. v. MANHASSET REALTY CORPORATION
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-05-08
Citations: 110 N.Y.S. 225
Docket Number: 
Parties: FITZGIBBONS BOILER CO. v. MANHASSET REALTY CORPORATION.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 110
Pages: 225–229

Head Matter:
FITZGIBBONS BOILER CO. v. MANHASSET REALTY CORPORATION.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
May 8, 1908.)
Fixtures—Bona Fide Purchaser—Conditional Sales.
Where property has been sold with full knowledge on the part of the seller that it was to be placed in a building so as to form part of the realty, a bona fide purchaser of the realty for value without notice obtains good title as against the conditional vendor; and where, under a contract providing that the title to certain steam-heating boilers should remain in the vendor until they were paid for, the boilers were installed in a building so that, while they could be moved on rollers, they could not be removed from the building without enlarging the doorways by cutting out the wall, or taking up the floor and hoisting the "boilers to the story above, the purchaser of the building without notice of the vendor’s claim for the purchase price of the boilers obtained good title as against the vendor.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 23, Fixtures, §§ 44-46.]
Scott, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Trial Term, New York County.
Action by the Fitzgibbons Boiler Company against the Manhasset Realty Corporation. From a judgment dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before INGRAHAM, McLAUGHLIN, LAUGHLIN, HOUGHTON," and SCOTT, JJ.
A. H. Gleason, for appellant.
Charles I. McBurney, for respondent.

Opinion:
HOUGHTON, J.
The action is for conversion of certain steam-heating boilers installed as a part of the steam-heating plant of an apartment house in the city of New York. The premises were originally owned by one Noble, and the apartment was erected by him. During the course of its erection he contracted with one Kirk to supply the heating apparatus therefor. Kirk contracted with the plaintiff for certain boilers for the heating system of the building, on condition that title should remain in the vendor until they were paid for, and Noble knew of this conditional purchase. The conditional bill of sale was in writing, and was signed in duplicate, but never filed. Contracts of conditional sale of boilers, amongst other specified property, were not required to be filed according to the provisions of section 115 of the lien law (Laws 1897, p. 541, c. 418, as amended by Laws 1898, p. 1019, c. 354, repealed by Laws 1905', p. 1162, c. 503) in force at the time of the execution of the contract in question. The boilers were set on a concrete flooring, and the pipes from them were connected to the heating system of the building by the ordinary coupling. By disconnecting this coupling the boilers could be moved on rollers about the floor, but could not be removed from the building without enlarging the doorways by cutting out the wall, or taking up the floor and hoisting them to the story above. When Noble purchased he gave back a purchase-money mortgage to his grantor, one Butler, who assigned it to a third party. During the erection of the building a building loan mortgage of large amount was placed upon the property. Thereafter the original purchase-money mortgage was foreclosed, and Butler became the purchaser, and he deeded the property to the defendant, which, as well as Butler, was a bona fide purchaser for value, having no notice of plaintiff's claim. Kirk failed to pay the purchase price of the boilers, and the plaintiff demanded that they be returned to it, and upon refusal brought this action.
The nonsuit was proper, and in accordance with the uniform decisions of this court- that, where personal property has been sold with full knowledge on the part of the seller that it is to be placed in a building in such manner as to form a part of the realty, a bona fide purchaser of the realty for value without notice obtains good title qs against the conditional vendor. Jermyn v. Hunter, 93 App. Div. 175, 87 N. Y. Supp. 546; McMillan v. Leaman, 101 App. Div. 436, 91 N. Y. Supp. 1055; Kirk v. Crystal, 118 App. Div. 32, 103 N. Y. Supp. 17; McLean v. Griot, 118 App. Div. 100, 103 N. Y. Supp. 129; Henry Huber Co. v. New England Realty Co., 124 App. Div. 109 N. Y. Supp. 1132 (Feb. Term, 1908). These decisions are in conformity with that of the Fourth Department in Andrews v. Powers, 66 App. Div. 216, 72 N. Y. Supp. 597, and that of the Second Department in Milicie v. Pearson, 110 App. Div. 770, 97 N. Y. Supp. 431. Even though there may be found some expressions of the courts in Duntz v. Granger Brewing Co., 41 Misc. Rep. 177, 83 N. Y. Supp. 957, affirmed 184 N. Y. 595, 77 N. E. 1186, or in Davis v. Bliss, 187 N. Y. 77, 79 N. E. 851, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 458, seemingly to militate against this holding, still we feel impelled to adhere to our view on this particular proposition until instructed to the contrary by the court of last resort.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
INGRAHAM, McEAUGHEIN, and EAUGHEIN, JJ., concur.