Page images
PDF
EPUB

the latter; more liberally between tenant for life or in tail and the reinainder-man, or reversioner, in favor of the former; and with much greater latitude between landlord and tenant, in favor of the tenant. A distinction arises, also, between the cases, from the nature of improvements. In Whiting v. Brastow, the court treated the improve. ments as personal chattels ; but this cannot be said of these erections which are of a permanent substantial kind, and which surely would not have gone to the executors of Mrs. Lloyd, if the buildings had been erected by her. It would have been waste in the tenant to have removed them; for it is in general true, that when a lessee having annexed anything to the freehold, during his term, afterwards takes it away, it is waste. Co. Lit. 53 ; Moore, 177; 4 Co. 64; Hob. 234.

Doty v. Gorham, 5 Pickering, 487, merely decides that a shop placed on the lands of the plaintiff, with his permission, was a chattel, and as such may be sold, on an execution against the owner and that the purchaser has a right to enter on the land and remove the shop. This principle it is not necessary to controvert, as the application of it is not perceived.

It must be remarked, that the agreement does not purport to bind Arndt, the owner of the remainder in fee, and seems to have been made under the belief and with the wish, that the life interest would last as long as the lease, which was but for three years. But if the intention were to bind him, the objection arises, that it is not competent for them to make an agreement, to affect the inheritance. On the falling in of the particular estate, the remainder-man or reversioner is entitled to all the improvements, which the law denominates fixtures, without regard to the manner

they are constructed, the persons who may have erected them, or whether they may contribute to enhance the value of the property or not. If the tenant for life, or the person with whom he contracts, wishes to avoid the consequences, the improvements must be removed during the continuance of the first estate ; or the assent of the l'emainder-man, or reversioner, must be obtained. There is nothing which shows any assent to the agreement by Arndt. The deposition of Lloyd proves nothing further than that the rent was made known to Arndt, and that he made no objection against White being the tenant for the remainder of the lease. But not a word was said, so far as appears, about this agreement. It is in general true, that where there is a lease for years, and by consent of both parties the tenant continues in possession afterwards, the law implies à tacit renovation of the contract. But that principle cannot fairly be made to apply to this case; for here, although the lease terminated at the death of Mrs. Lloyd, and the tenant continued in possession with the consent of Arndt, yet that would bind the parties to nothing more than what came within the terms of the lease. It would not include the case of a collateral agreement, independent of the lease itself. The agreement on which this case turns, was a collateral agreement, of which it does not appear that Arndt was

in any manner apprised, or to which there is not the slightest evidence
he assented, either directly or by necessary implication.

Judgment affirmed.

1

ŅOBLE v. BOSWORTH.
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS. 1837.

(Reported 19 Pick. 314.)
Shaw. C. J. It will probably not be necessary to go much at large

noble d Borrorsh

927

Gretien tror jane fa tekeving ere irone rettled to coffer, kettler Ref. conveyed to pe real estate in which are a de horas an. taining the better in questions. ole kelle seul

ole ketler see firmly set in brick'irrk tvere a parte reait

se}. maritariceó Hat'he fet agros Costó zell RTÉ. to me hapin helre he executed the deed - thich circuns starane pe had kuncedge. Cel mantenied that is retained Pere inz. sid deed coverly letter, it seved tawe

endenca e admitted to star Rettle neat included red. ett be off? died zwa t ret teper the necitlien mante

Sutrument in criting cannot be varieday farol tridence Tatatur demander that all rights interests in real estat statist

sener intrument in

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

This presents two questions : first, whether the deed, by its ordinary effect and operation, transferred the property in these dre-kettles; and if so, then secondly, whether that effect can be controlled by the parol agreement made before or at the time of the delivery of the deed, that the kettles should not be considered as included in the deed.

As to the first, whatever doubt there might be, if kettles were erected in like manner by a tenant on the leased premises, for the purposes of

1 See Haflick v. Stober, 11 Ohio St. 482.

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

in any manner apprised, or to which there is not the slightest evidence he assented, either directly or by necessary implication.

Judgment affirmed.

ŅOBLE v. BOSWORTH.
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS. 1837.

(Reported 19 Pick. 314.] Shaw, C. J. It will probably not be necessary to go much at large into the facts of this case, to explain the only material principle of law on which it is decided. The action is trespass for taking and carrying away one iron kettle and two copper kettles. There are two counts: one, quare clausum, charging the taking away of the kettles as aggravation; the other, de bonis asportatis, in which the gravamen is, the taking away and converting the same kettles.

The defendant, by deed of June 4th, 1835, duly executed, acknowledged and delivered, conveyed to the plaintiff a parcel of real estate, on which was a dye-house, and in that dye-house were the kettles in question. They were firmly set in brickwork, and constituted a valulable part of the estate, and were a part of the realty. By mutual agreement, the grantor retained possession till April, 1836, at about which time the kettles were taken down by the defendant and removed. The deed conveys the premises, including the dye-house and appurtenances, but making no mention of the kettles, either by expressly excepting or including them. The deed was not delivered at the time of its date, and probably not till some months after; but this is not material.

The defence relied upon was, that at the time the bargain was made for a sale of the premises, by the defendant to the plaintiff, June 4th, 1835, it was agreed by Bosworth, the owner of the dye-house, with one Chapin, to sell him the three kettles, that this was known to Noble, and it was understood and agreed, that by the deed from Bosworth to Noble, the kettles were not intended to be conveyed, and that although the agreement between Bosworth and Chapin from accidental causes fell through and was not executed, yet that the property in the kettles remained in the defendant, and did not pass hy his deed to the plaintiff.

This presents two questions : first, whether the deed, by its ordinary effect and operation, transferred the property in these dye-kettles; and if so, then secondly, whether that effect can be controlled by the parol agreement made before or at the time of the delivery of the deed, that the kettles should not be considered as included in the deed.

As to the first, whatever doubt there might be, if kettles were erected in like manner by a tenant on the leased premises, for the purposes of

1 See Haflick v. Stober, 11 Ohio St. 482.

1

his trade, or by a mortgagor after the estate had been mortgaged, we have no doubt, that where an owner erects a dye-house on his own land, and sets up dye-kettles therein, firmly secured in brick work, they become part of the realty, and pass by a deed of the land without express words.

The legal effect and operation of such a deed is to vest the entire right and property in the kettles in the grantee. Union Bank v. Emerson, 15 Mass. R. 159.

2. Then is it competent for the grantor to control or restrain this legal effect, by proof of a parol agreement, made previously to or at the time of the delivery of the deed? The court are all of opinion, that it is not. It would be as well contrary to the general rule of the common law, which provides that the terms of an instrument in writing shall not be altered or controlled by a parol agreement, as against the provision of the Statutes, which requires that all rights and interests in real estate, shall be manifested by some instrument in writing, and that no action shall be brought on any agreement for the sale of lands, or any interest in or concerning the same, unless in writing. St. 1783, c. 37, SS 1, 2, 3. It is as much against these rules to admit parol evidence, to prevent or restrain the legal inferences and consequences of a deed, as to control and alter its express provisions. Pattison v. Hull, 9 Cowen, 754. A deed passes all the incidents to the land as well as the land itself, and as much when not expressed, as when they are. If the parol agreement were made before the execution and delivery of the deed, it is to be regarded as part of the negotiation and discussion respecting the terms of the purchase and sale, which is considered as merged and embodied in the deed itself as the final and authoritative expression of the agreement and determination of the parties on the subject. If it was made at the time of the delivery of the deed, then it must be deemed an exception, reservation or defeasance, and being repugnant to the terms and effect of the deed, it is void.

For these reasons, the court are of opinion, that the verdict, which was for the defendant, must be set aside, and a new trial granted.

Lathrop, I C. Bates, and Forbes, for the defendant.
Wells, Alvord, and W. G. Bates, contra.

PEIRCE V. GODDARD.

SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS. 1839.

(Reported 22 Pick. 559.) TROVER.

The writ contained two counts, one, for the conversion of a dwelling-house, and the other, for the conversion of the materials of a dwelling-house.

By an agreed statement of facts it appeared that Oliver G. Darenport, on the 16th of January, 1836, mortgaged to the plaintiff a lot of

« PreviousContinue »