Court Opinion

ID: 9825862
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 14:12:24.354207+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:26.349512
License: Public Domain

MoFaddin, J., concurring. The trial court found and adjudged that the land had reverted to the original grantor. That finding and judgment is final, because there is no cross appeal by the school district. Therefore we are not now concerned with the question of the reversion of the land. The only question to be answered, on this appeal, is, whether the building goes with the land. I concur in the affirmative answer reached by the majority. In 22 it. R. L. 59 the rule is stated: “The general principle of law is that a building permanently fixed to the freehold becomes a part of it, that prima facie a house is real estate, belonging to the owner of the land on which it stands. . . . Improvements of a permanent character made on land, and attached thereto, without consent of the owner, by one having no title or interest, become a part of the realty, and vest in the owner of the fee without reimbursement from him. So if a building is erected on land against the will of the landowner, or without his consent, it becomes a part of the realty . . . It has been held, however, that an addition to an existing building becomes the property of the owner of the premises, though erected by his permission, in the absence of any agreement or understanding to the contrary. ’ ’ Tested by tlie above statement, it is clear that the building was a part of the real estate and therefore reverted with the land; and for that reason I concur with the result reached in this case.