TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Guaranty Savings Bank v. James

The Guaranty Savings Bank of Manchester, New Hampshire v. F. M. James

Guar. Sav. Bank v. James, 89 P. 1132 (Kan. 1907)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Kansas · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 6, 1907
Docket
No. 14,989
Citations
89 P. 113275 Kan. 8421907 Kan. LEXIS 153
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
FIXTURES — Question of Fact. Where a second floor was, without the consent of the owner of the building, laid upon the first floor, the fact that some of the nails penetrated the first floor one-fourth of an inch was said not to be conclusive proof that the second floor was permanently attached or that its removal would materially injure thp first floor.
Summary
Error from Reno district court; Peter J. Galle, judge.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam:

Rule 7 of this court, relating to the preparation of cases to be considered, is ignored in the respect that no index of the record has been supplied. Rule 10 has also been utterly disregarded. However, as it was stated on the presentation of the case that reasons existed which palliate the infraction of the rules, we have attempted with considerable inconvenience, and much uncertainty in the absence of any specification of errors, to ascertain the merits of the case and the grounds for complaint.

The controversy was whether a second floor, laid in a building over another floor, without the consent of the owner of the building, was so attached to the first, or permanent, floor as to become a part of the real estate, or whether the second floor as laid and attached remained' personal property. The court properly instructed the jury, in substance, that if the second floor was permanently attached to the floor beneath, or so attached that it could not be removed without some' considerable injury to the building or floor beneath, it thereby became and was a part of the realty; otherwise it was personal property/ The court also gave the jury *843 some other proper tests for determining this controversy.

The evidence was not entirely harmonious, and the jury found in favor of the plaintiff — that the second floor was personal property, and assessed its value.

In one of the special findings the jury stated that some of the nails penetrated the first floor one-fourth of an inch. It cannot be said from this, however, as a proposition of law, that the second floor was permanently attached or that the first floor would be injured to any material extent by the removal therefrom of the second floor.

No error having been assigned, and no material error being discovered, the judgment is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1915: 119152026peak 1915 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. L. & M. Mercantile Co. v. Wimer146 P. 1162 (Kan. 1915)

Most recent

  1. L. & M. Mercantile Co. v. Wimer146 P. 1162 (Kan. 1915)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list