Court Opinion

ID: 4141055
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-02-18 03:06:18.967922+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:15.967470
License: Public Domain

’ I.:?
                 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
iI I
                                      AUSTIN
j   46 Tex. 651, 664, 66 Am. Rep. 666, aa fol-
lowat
       w*lat. Baa there be8n a real or conetruotite    annera-
tlcn   of the artiols   in queetlon   to the realty?
       *‘2d. BDaathere a iitnesa or adaptation of suah
artiole   to the uses or purposes of the realty with
whlah it 1.3 aonneotea?
      l'6d. mether or not it wea the intentLon of the
party msk-int, the annexation that the chattel should
beoome~a"permanant aocasaion to the rreaholdT-thlr
intantion bedng inrerable     from the nature of the utlole,
the relation   and situatlan    of the parties interested,
the polioy of thalaw      in respaat thereto,  the mode of
annesatlon,  and purpose or use for whloh the annexatian
18 ride.
     **And of these three    testa, pre-eminence Is to be
given to the questfon of     intention to make the artiole
a permanent aaceasion to     the rreehold,  while the other8
are ohfeily of value as     evldenoo as to this intention.1
      *mile appellant contends that the orip,inel leeee-
hold in guestion here from V:. T. Zaggoner to Barkley lb
keadows provided that the oe&ng, roda, tubing, tanks,
eta., may be renovad by the lessee irom the leasehold,
we find only a small part of said lease In the reoord
in this case and such a provlafon,  ii made, was not
contained in that part of the leesehold   in the reoord.
                                                                           355   r

     However, it stands to reason that the intention of
     the partiee to the original   lease sontreet wmld be
     to place the oaeing,rods, tubing and evsn the pump6
     and tanks on suoh a leasehold tor temporary use only
     with the full intention   of removing the% onto other
     leases ii desired,  and certainly   in oaseproduotlon
     beoame unprofitable   es was the ease with the leasehold
     iA queI3tiOn.

          The applloable      rules   are also   stated   in 86 0, J. 3.
89%. aa roilore
          I        . Prdinarily    the courts
                                            hold that Gor an
     arti&    ;o beoams a tlrture thare must anlte      the rollon-
     ing requisites:   (1) annexation to the realty or something
     appurtenant thareto;    (a) adaptability   or appliaation  oi
     the ahattel airlxed to the use or purpoee to whioh the
     realty is appropriatsd;    and (3) the iatsntion    or the
     party making ths aanexetfon to msJce a perrnaaent asoes-
     810~ t4 the fr ehold.*
          lfhe requieit   abeled “(I)* above is perhapa eaal4
eatleried. Aooorrliq \ to   e t6ZnII ab the iAStraPl6At OOAvayiAg
the right of way, the grant&s weeo     to burr the pipe line Ln
the ground below     plow depth.
           Bequiolte  "(2)" ia apparently uatlsriea   ror the
reason that the easement was aoqulred on4 for the purpoae Or
maintaining a pips line, or possibly    two pips lines,  aorQa8
the lend in question.
            IA rsaent years mere and more weight has been gfrea
to requisite   v(3)*, until it is AOWregarded as the major test
in determining whether ar not parsonal property has beaome a
rixture.    As stated in the ieregoing Texas deaisions,    *And of
these three tests,    pre-eminence is to be given to the question
of intention   to make the'artlale   a permanent aooession to ths
freehold    while the others ars chiefly   of value as evidenoo
a8 to this iAtaAtiQA.*
Hon. Fred Erieman, page 9

           The only eridenoe of the intention of' ths partiss
with rsspeot to whethar or not they Intend ths pipe line
In question to beomne a fixture   is the above quoted exoerpt
from thee oonrepine  instrumant, where it is reoited that the
grantee *may remove t?!e same (meaning the pipe line) in whole
or in part at will,*
            Absent other and oontrolling svldanoe eatablloblng
sn lntantion   of the parties to make the pips line a fixture,
we would be oonatrained to say that ths pips line is not a
fixture but is personal property and tharsfore    not subjest
to being taxed as real property.
              In our opinion the pumping equipment Is a part or
  the realty.    It Is losated on property owned In fse. by Ds-
  fsnse PlantAorporation.       wa hare baon plaosd In poaaaa8ion
  of no fam     whloh lndloate the pumping equlpmsnt was not
.intendedby     the parties ts become a part of' the realty.      A
 number of deoieions     support the propsaltion    that pumping
  eqtiwnt     beoomes a part of the realty when annbnd tJmreto.
  (See Blain Y. Corbin, 51 Ga. App. 498, 180 S. E. e54; First
  State h 8aringa Bank T. Olirsr,     101 Or. 49, 198 P. 990~
 Bell v. Bank of Perrle      58 Cal. Afir, (ad) 66, 185 P. (9d)
 829; Rlnbrand well Dri&ing Co.,           ., t. L. h 3. Thsatres,
 Ino., 80 A. (ad) 35.8.)~
                                      ,'
              We also are of the.oplnion     that the buildings
  inquired about are taxable as real property.        Although in
  the great majority of oases the burden of proof is upon
 one aseertlng     that the olrou.matanoes of annexation of ger-
 sonalty to realty are such as to make the article         a part
 of the realty,     such is not the oase with buildings.      Build-
  ings ars presumed to be a part of the realty.       36 Cf. J. 3.
1006-1008.

                                      Yours very truly

GPB:AkW