Fifield v. Maine Central Railroad
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On exceptions. Trover for the conversion of a specified number of bars of railroad iron of various lengths, valued at $2,500, alleged to have been taken July 17, 1871, in Brooks. Wilson, Tennant & Co. were contractors for building the Belfast and Moosehead Lake Railroad, furnishing the iron themselves. November 1, 1870, they delivered the road to the company.
Read the full summary
On exceptions. Trover for the conversion of a specified number of bars of railroad iron of various lengths, valued at $2,500, alleged to have been taken July 17, 1871, in Brooks. Wilson, Tennant & Co. were contractors for building the Belfast and Moosehead Lake Railroad, furnishing the iron themselves. November 1, 1870, they delivered the road to the company. The iron claimed in this action was then laid down in two side tracks, fastened to the main track by frogs, and previously used by the contractors in the transportation of gravel, being moved from place to place, as occasion required;…
1Opinion of the CourtPeters, J.
The defendants contend that the rails in controversy were a fixture, or part of a fixture, and not attachable as personal property.
*80In Hunt v. Bay State Iron Co., 97 Mass., 282, it was decided, that rails delivered under an agreement that they should be laid down on a specific part of a railroad, and continue the property of the vendors until a specific price was paid for them, remained the personal property of the vendors until payment, and were not, when laid, so inseparably annexed to and incorporated with the realty that they could not be removed for non-payment of the price. The same…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Muir v. JonesOregon Supreme Court · 1892
- California Machinery & Supply Co. v. University City Syndicate, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1935