Court Opinion

ID: 9562551
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:31:20.742098+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:23.896020
License: Public Domain

Felton, C. J.,
concurring specially. I think that common sense *795and the general knowledge of business dealings and the intensions of parties in such cases demand the conclusion that the switchboard and the telephones are personal property. To apply some of the usual rules used in determining whether a fixture is realty or personalty, would result in an erroneous conclusion in this case. For instance, suppose a telephone company in a small town or city owned a building in which the switchboard was located and sold the building to a person to be used for other than telephone purposes. In such a case I think it would be unthinkable that the purchaser would think that he acquired title to the switchboard as a part of the building. And, if a telephone company owned dwellings which it rented to its employees, a sale of the dwellings themselves would not carry with them the title to the telephones therein installed. I do not think that the ruling in Rhyne v. Mayhugh, cited by the majority, is authority to the contrary. However, I concur in the judgment on authority of the ruling in Novak v. Redwine, ante, p. 755.