Court Opinion

ID: 9864586
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 14:09:12.41719+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:18:45.671782
License: Public Domain

THE COURT
The petition for a rehearing is denied. In order that the effect of the decision may not be misunderstood we deem it necessary to add some details not given in the opinion of the district court. [4] In the house in question certain fixtures- were attached to the closet doors and to the floors of the closets in the rooms in which *531the beds in quéstion were installed, by means of which the beds, which were the subject in controversy in the action,
, could be placed in the closet and hooked on to the aforesaid fixtures. The effect was that when the closet door was opened the bed would swing around into the room, whereupon, by letting it down upon the floor, it was ready for use. The beds were not built in the wall with the house nor were they a necessary part of the house itself. They could be taken out without unscrewing any screws or removing any fixtures and the house would remain habitable as before, except that it was not furnished with beds. It is obvious, therefore, that they were not affixed to the building in the ordinary sense of the word so as to become a part of the realty as between the person who sold the same, retaining title in himself, and a subsequent purchaser of the house without notice of such reserved title. These beds were not fixtures but were a part of the furniture of the house, not essentially different from beds of any other description. So far as the opinion of the district court places the affirmance upon the proposition that the plaintiff would have effectually retained title to the property as against the defendants, even if the beds had been built in or permanently affixed to the house, we are of the opinion that the question was not involved in the case and was unnecessary to the decision, and we withhold approval of the expressions therein to that effect.
All the Justices concurred.