45 Ga. App. 200 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1932
1. Where personal property (a furnace and its fixtures) was sold under a written contract wherein it was agreed that the furnace and all its fixtures should remain the personal property of the seller until all of the purchase-price was fully paid, and that in default of such payment the seller, without molestation, could enter the premises where the furnace had been installed and remove the furnace and its fixtures, and where subsequently the furnace and fixtures were installed by the seller in the house of the purchaser in such manner that they apparently become a part of the real estate, and in such manner that but for the said title-retention contract they would have become a part of the realty, but where they did not by such installation lose their identity, but on the contrary were capable of identification, and remained detachable fixtures which could be removed without materially injuring the value of the realty or the value of the fixtures, and where the title-retention contract was duly filed in the office of the clerk of the superior court of Fulton county, Georgia (the county where the purchaser of the furnace resided and where the furnace was installed), and was recorded in mortgage book 566, page 535, and properly indexed on the chattel-mortgage records, the said recording being done subsequently to the execution of said contract and the installation of the furnace, and more than five months before the real estate to which the furnace was attached was sold to the defendant in this action in trover; and where the title-retention contract was recorded as a chattel mortgage only, and
2. The foregoing rulings are in substance those of the Supreme Court in this case, made in answer to a question certified by this court. See Lasch v. Columbus Heating & Ventilating Co., 174 Ga. 618 (163 S. E. 486).
3. The first headnote of the Supreme Court’s decision in this case is as follows: “The decisions in the first division of the Court of Appeals, as announced in Williams v. Ideal Plumbing Co., 41 Ga. App. 607 (154 S. E. 212), and Colonial Hill Co. v. Moncrief Furnace Co., 43 Ga. App. 204 (158 S. E. 343), are in conflict with the decision of the second division of that court as announced in Skinner v. Stewart Plumbing Co., 42 Ga. App. 42 (155 S. E. 97). This court is of the opinion that the decisions of the first division of the Court of Appeals announce the true law upon the question involved, and are in harmony with the decisions of this court.”
Judgment affirmed.