Davenport v. John G. Shants & Co., 43 Vt. 546

Davenport v. John G. Shants & Co.

43 Vt. 546 | Vt. | 1871

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Peck, J.

The bill having been taken as confessed as to all the defendants except Henry G. Root, and he alone defending, the only question is as to the right of the orator, under his mortgage from Shants & Co., to that portion of the property sold conditionally by Root to the said mortgagors.

The bill, and answer of Root, in connection with the written stipulation of the parties on file, leave no dispute as to the material *551facts in the case, and no time need be spent in repeating the facts thus agreed.

It must be regarded as settled as a general rule in this state, that a party may sell and deliver personal property, under a condition that it shall remain the property of the vendor until the price is paid; and that under such contract, the title will remain in the vendor until the condition is complied with, both as between the vendor and such conditional vendee, and also as between the original vendor and a bona fide purchaser without notice from -such conditional vendee. The only question is whether the facts of this case take it out of the general rule.

The proposition of the counsel of the defendant Root is, that the whole property sold conditionally by Root to Shants & Co. was personal property as well after as before .the sale, and can not properly be claimed as fixtures or as parts of the realty. But we think as between mortgagor and mortgagee, if the title of the mortgagor were absolute, the defendant’s proposition is not correct; and that under the recent decisions in this state, on being-put in place in the mill and factory, as shown in this case, it became so far annexed to the realty as to pass under a mortgage of the real estate. But still the question remains as between the mortgagee under his mortgage, and the original owner under his conditional sale to the mortgagor, which has the paramount right.

First, as to that portion of the property which had been put in place in the mill and factory by the mortgagors after they thus purchased it of Root, and which was in the building and thus annexed at the time the orator took his mortgage : As to this property, the orator, as it appears, having advanced his money and taken his mortgage in good faith, without notice of any lien or encumbrance upon it, and from its condition, having reason to suppose that the mortgagors’ title to this property in question was the same as his title to the realty, to which it wns annexed, and of which it was apparently parcel, seems to have a strong equity in his favor. While . on the other hand the defendant Root, the unpaid vendor, who endeavored to secure himself, by stipulation in the sale that he should hold the title till paid, ought not to be deprived of this security without some substantial reason. But *552the defendant Root must have understood, when he sold the property to Shants & Co., that they intended to put the property to use in advance of the- payment of the price; and from the kind and nature of the property, he must have expected that in its use it necessarily must be annexed to the realty, substantially in the manner in which it was, and thereby become apparently parcel of the realty. What he knew or had reason to suppose and did suppose was to be done with the property, he must be taken to have consented to, as he did not object. Root therefore having, by implication at least, if not expressly, consented that the property might be incorporated with the realty of Shants & Co. in the manner it was, and they thereby become clothed with the apparent title as incident to their record title to the real estate, whereby the mortgagee was misled and induced to part with his money on the credit of the property, the equity of the mortgagee is paramount to that of the conditional vendor. Justice and equity, as well as sound policy, require this limit to the rights of a conditional vendor as between him and an innocent purchaser or mortgagee of real estate without notice, who advances his money.on the faith of a perfect title.

But as to that portion of the property mentioned in the answer of the defendant Root, and in the agreed statement of facts on file, which had not been placed in the mill or factory at the time of the execution of the mortgage to the orator,- but was in the yard and put in place in the factory or mill afterwards, the right of the defendant Root is paramount- to the ijght of the orator. That, not having been annexed to the realty at the date of the mortgage, would not pass as incident to the realty; and the mortgage did not divest Root of his title. It having been placed in the building by the mortgagors after the execution of the mortgage, the mortgagee might hold it as against them, but not as against Root, the conditional vendor. As to this portion of the property the mortgagee was not misled, and advanced nothing on the faith of it.

The decree of the court of chancery is reversed, and cause remanded for a decree of foreclosure for orator against all the defendants as to all the property except that defendant Root have *553a right to that portion of the property, or the value thereof, not in place in the factory or mill at the time of the execution of the mortgage to the orator, but put in afterwards,—the orator having his election to pay to Root the value of it, or have it excepted in the decree so far as Root is concerned, with liberty to Root to remove it within such reasonable time as the court of chancery shall fix for that purpose.