Richards v. Morey

HAYNES, C.

ction to recover possession of personal property. The plaintiffs had judgment for certain pipe, hydrants, tools, etc., of the value of $845.20, but their claim for the recovery of certain buildings was denied, and from that portion of the judgment they appeal, upon the judgment roll. The evidence is not brought up by bill of exceptions or otherwise. The only question is, whether the plaintiffs were entitled to judgment upon the facts stated in the sixth finding, which is as follows: —

“6. That the house known as the engineer’s house, and which is of the value of $200, and building known as the storage-house, and which is of the value of $75, and the long shed mentioned in the complaint, which is of the value of $35, were formerly attached to and part of the ranch known as the Monte Vista Ranch, being plat ‘E’ of the Rancho Jamacha, in said county, and was the property of the plaintiffs; that the defendant, against the will of the plaintiffs, and without their consent, took the same and removed the same from said ranch and attached the same to the Eddy tract, so called, being plat ‘F’ of the Rancho Jamacha, in said county, before the commencement of this action, the said Eddy tract being at the time of said attachment, and now, the property of one George S. Davis, and the said defendant has incorporated the said engineer’s house into a dwelling-house, and now occupied by him upon said last-named tract; that all of said buildings were removed with the consent of said Davis; and that the said Davis, previous to said removal, had agreed with the plaintiffs that said buildings should not be removed from said Monte Vista Ranch, above referred to.”

This finding shows that these buildings were removed by the defendant from the Monte Vista Ranch and “ attached ” to the Eddy tract, which then was, and now is, the property of George 8. Davis, who is not a party to the suit. It is not found that defendant, Morey, has any ownership in the Eddy tract, to which these buildings are found to be “ attached,” or had any interest or ownership therein at any time. The possession of the buildings was therefore in Davis at the time

[439]

the action was commenced. The fact that the dwelling-house into which the “ engineer’s house ” was incorporated is “ occupied” by the defendant does not affect the ownership and possession of Davis, who is the owner of the ranch, the said buildings having been attached to and thereby made part of his land before this action was commenced.