Case Name: J. E. KENNEDY v. CITY OF HOOD RIVER et al.
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1927-10-11
Citations: 122 Or. 531
Docket Number: 
Parties: J. E. KENNEDY v. CITY OF HOOD RIVER et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 122
Pages: 531–537

Head Matter:
Submitted on briefs September 14,
reversed October 11, 1927.
J. E. KENNEDY v. CITY OF HOOD RIVER et al.
(259 Pac. 911.)
For appellants there was a brief over the name of Mr. Ernest C. Smith.
For respondent there was a brief over the name of Mr. A. J. Derby.

Opinion:
COSHOW, J.
Defendants contend that by virtue of the exception in the deed from the defendant city to Batchelder, the city was the absolute owner of the building and fixtures therein. The plaintiff contends that he is a purchaser without notice, and that the exception and reservation in the deed do not prevent the building and fixtures from passing to him as a part of the realty. Plaintiff also contends that the exception and reservation operated to retain ownership of said building and fixtures in defendant city only conditionally; said ownership depending upon the same being removed on* or before July 1, 1924. The clause in the deed, reserving the title to the building, constitutes an exception, constructively separated the building and fixtures therein from the land and converted said building and fixtures into personal property.
"When the plaintiff and Wilson agreed that the elevator should not be 'included in the equipment of the building' and 'that no shelving, counters or fixtures belong to the building,' they at that moment agreed to treat the elevator as personal property; and, consequently, although not physically detached, it was thereupon constructively detached, and thenceforth it was, as between Wilson and the plaintiff, personal property."
Blake-McFall Co. v. Wilson, 98 Or. 626, 643 (193 Pac. 902, 14 A. L. R. 1275); Coleman v. Lewis, 27 Pa. St. 291; Tifft v. Horton, 53 N. Y. 377 (13 Am. Rep. 537); Sowden & Co. v. Craig, 26 Iowa, 156 (96 Am. Dec. 125).
A different rule of law applies to standing timber from the law applicable to fixtures.
"The intention of making the article permanently accessory to the real property is to be inferred from the nature of the article, the relation of the party making or maintaining the annexation, the policy of the law in relation thereto, the structure and mode of annexation, and the purpose and use for which it is made." First State etc. Bank v. Oliver, 101 Or. 42, 49 (198 Pac. 920).
By the reservation in the deed the defendant city retained title to the personal property mentioned in the reservation. Title to the building did not pass from the city. It was a fixture, and, but for the exception in the deed, would have passed by virtue of the conveyance to the purchaser of the land. The deed was duly recorded, and the exception and reservation, being incorporated in the deed, was notice to the plaintiff of defendant city's interest in the land and fixtures. Plaintiff himself claims what interest he has in the property through the deed from the city to said Batchelder and plaintiff cannot be heard to say that he had no notice of the exception and reservation, because they are incorporated in that deed. The limitation of the right of the defendant city to enter upon said premises in order to remove the building and fixtures does not operate to convey said building to either the grantee of the defendant city or his successors in interest. By virtue of the exception, that building and its fixtures became personal property. The building and fixtures were constructively separated from the land on which they were situated by the exception in the deed. The building and fix tures belonged to tbe city. From both of the briefs, as -well as the evidence, we learn that the city continued to use the building and fixtures until they were removed from the land. The city was occupying and using the building and fixtures when the plaintiff entered into his contract with Worthley for the purchase of the land. The building and fixtures constituted a comfort station and were reserved from the deed to Batchelder for the purpose of moving and using them on another and different tract of land to be used by the city as an automobile park. We infer from the evidence, as well as the briefs of both parties, that, when the city had its automobile park ready, the building and its fixtures were removed from the tract sold to Batchelder to the new automobile park. This circumstance clearly indicates that the city did not intend to abandon its right to the building or the right to remove it by its delay in moving it.
So far as this case is concerned, it is immaterial whether the reservation in the deed is technically an exception or a reservation. The technical language used does not determine the nature of such a clause in a deed. That nature is determined by the context. We think it clear that the building and fixtures were excepted'from the conveyance. The right to enter upon the premises to remove the building is technically a reservation: Devlin on Real Estate (3d ed.), §221, 979 and 980; Elliott on Contracts, § 3864 and 3865; Washburn on Real Property (6 ed.), § 2352, 2353, 2354 and 2355, and particularly note 3 on page 419; Deckenbach v. Deckenbach, 65 Or. 160, 167, 168 (130 Pac. 729).
The defendants may have been guilty of trespassing in entering upon the premises for the purpose of removing therefrom the building and fixtures. We do not determine that question. This action was not instituted or prosecuted to recover damages for trespass. It is our opinion that the motion for a non-suit should have been granted. This conclusion renders the consideration of other assigned errors unnecessary.
The judgment is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and Remanded.