Macdonough v. Starbird

California Supreme Court Dec 6, 1894 No. No. 15541Published

Before: Belcher

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendants, as tenants, had the right to remove a trade fixture during the continuance of their lease, which remained in effect despite the transfer of the property title to the plaintiff.

Issues

Whether a building erected by tenants as a trade fixture may be removed during the continuance of their lease.
Whether the transfer of property title to a new owner terminates an existing month-to-month lease or creates a new one.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In our opinion the building, if a fixture, was a trade fixture, which, under section 1019 of the Civil Code, defendants had a right to remove at any time during the continuance of their term.”

“It is clear that the mere transfer of the title did not in any way change, modify, or affect the lease.”

“It follows, in our opinion, that when defendants commenced to remove the building, it was during the continuance of their term of lease, and they had a right to make the removal.”

Synopsis

Landlord and Tenant—Removal of Trade Fixtures—Lumber-yard Office.—An office, erected by a tenant of a lumber-yard, and resting upon mudsills placed on the surface of the ground, is a trade fixture which, under section 1019 of the Civil Code, the tenant has a right to remove at any time during the continuance of the term.

Id.—Lease from Month to Month—Effect of Transfer of Title— Change of Lease.—A mere transfer of title does not in any way change, modify, or affect a lease from month to month; but the grantee simply takes the place of his grantor, and becomes the landlord of the tenant, and the lease continues as before, subject only to change in the mode prescribed by statute.

Id.—Continuance of Tenancy—Right to Remove Trade Fixture— Ignorance of Grantee—Injunction.—Where no notice was given by the grantee pursuant to section 789 or section 827 of the Civil Code, and no attempt was made by him to terminate the lease from month to month, or to change its terms in any way, but he accepted the customary rent, and allowed the occupancy to continue for a full year, there is a recognition and continuance of the old lease by the grantee, and not the taking of a new one by the tenants, and the tenants have a right to remove an office building as a trade fixture during the continuance of the lease from month to month, and the new landlord cannot enjoin such removal on the ground that he was ignorant of an agreement between the tenants and his grantor for such removal.

Belcher, C. The plaintiff commenced this action to obtain an injunction restraining the defendants from removing a building from a lot of land owned by him.

The ease was tried, and the findings and judgment were in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff appeals from the judgment and an order denying his motion for a new trial.

It appears that in 1881 one Bartlett was the owner of beach and water lot Ho. 586, in the city of San Francisco, and leased the same to the defendants from month to month for a lumber-yard. The defendants erected on the lot the building in question to be used by them as an office in conducting their business. The building was a one-story wooden structure twenty feet square, and for its foundation they placed mudsills on the sur[18]face of the ground, and on these mudsills were short posts on which the main sills rested.

The defendants occupied_the lot as tenants of Bartlett, and paid him monthly rent therefor until about September 1,1885, when he sold and conveyed the same to one Jennings. Jennings recognized and renewed the said lease, and the defendants thereafter held and occupied the lot as his tenants from month to month; and it was understood and agreed by him that the said building was the property of defendants, and might be removed by them from the lot at any time.

In December, 1891, Jennings conveyed to the plaintiff, by an ordinary bargain and sale deed, the said lot, “ together with all and singular the tenements, hereditaments, and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in any wise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues, and profits thereof.”

When the plaintiff "bought the property he had no knowledge or notice of the agreement between Jennings and defendants that they might remove the building from the lot at any time, other than such as would be given by their occupancy as tenants.

No new lease or agreement as to lease was made between plaintiff and defendants, but they continued to hold the property from month to month, and to pay to the plaintiff the same rent as before, until December, 1892, when they attempted to remove the building, and this action was commenced.

The contention of appellant is: 1. That the building was affixed to the land, and was a part of the realty, and that he was an innocent purchaser of the land and building, and hence was not bound by the oral agreement of Jennings that defendants could remove the building; 2. That defendants took a new lease from plaintiff, without any new arrangement as to removal, and that they had no right to remove after they ceased to be tenants of Jennings.

Macdonough v. Starbird

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief