Reynolds v Ashby & Son
[1904] A.C. 466(Judgment by: Lord James)
Between: Reynolds - Appellant : Ashby & Son - Respondent
Court:
Judges:
Earl of Halsbury LC
Lord MacNaghten
Lord JamesLord Lindley
Subject References:
FIXTURES
Machinery attached to Freehold
Presumption of Law
Trade Fixtures
Mortgage
Hire-purchase Agreement
Rights of Mortgagee against Owner of Machinery
Licence to remove Trade Fixtures
Entry of Mortgagee into Possession
Judgment date: 5 August 1904
Judgment by:
Lord James
My Lords, it must be taken that the appellant was aware that the machines would be used in a factory and would be affixed in the usual manner to the building.
In the first instance I was disposed to think that the question of chattel or fixture, being one of fact, ought necessarily to have been submitted to the jury, but apparently the course taken by the learned judge in treating the question as one of law, or as one of fact upon which the jury were bound to accept his directions and apply the law as declared by him, was correct, and certainly was acquiesced in by both parties to the suit.
The manner in which the machines were affixed to the buildings has been clearly brought to the notice of your Lordships, and is shewn by some sketches set out in the case. This affixing of the machines is to obtain steadiness, and effects the usual condition under which such machines are used.
My Lords, the authorities controlling the questions respecting the difference between fixtures and chattels are very numerous, and have arisen between different parties. The rights of landlord or tenant, of mortgagor or mortgagee, and liability to being rated, have all brought this question to a legal issue for the determination of our Courts.
I do not propose to review those authorities in detail, but having consulted and considered them, I have come to the conclusion that the weight of authority is in favour of the view that these machines must be held to be affixed to the building so as to pass under the mortgage as being a portion of the factory.
The cases supporting this view are very numerous, but the principal case now generally referred to is that of Hobson v. Gorringe, the authority which Lawrance J. acted upon.
Doubtless there are cases and dicta upon which the appellants are entitled to rely. Hellawell v. Eastwood and several other cases were relied upon at the bar to shew that these machines should be regarded as chattels - but in none of these cases did the question arise between mortgagor and mortgagee, and in some of them the decisions are explained upon grounds other than those existing in the present case.
In the same way Trappes v. Harter, a case arising out of a mortgage, was decided principally upon a question of local custom, and in Lyon v. London City and Midland Bank the decision in favour of some chairs being chattels appears to have been correctly decided upon the special facts of that case.
My Lords, it was argued at the bar that as Holdway had not paid for the machines they remained the property of the appellant, and could not by any act of Holdway be dealt with as fixtures, but the argument cannot, I think, prevail. The machines were sold by the appellant for the purpose of being used in the manner in which they were used. In order so to use them it was necessary that they should be fixed, and so become part of the building.
For these reasons I feel that, following a great preponderance of authority, your Lordships' judgment should be in favour of the respondents.