Consolidated Gas, Electric Light & Power Co. v. Ryan

Pattison, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The McNamara Brothers Company, a corporation, was the owner of a lot of land on Edoman Street in Westport, Baltimore, upon which they had, in 1918, erected a building of structural steel, covered in part by corrugated iron to be used in the business of constructing heavy steel plates and tanks. In the use of the building for the purposes stated, hoisting machines of some character were necessary to raise heavy objects and material from the floor and move it to other parts of the building. Until 1919 jib cranes attached to the vertical beams or columns at the sides of the building were used.

There were twenty of these columns. Late in 1919 McNamara Brothers Company ceased to use the jib cranes and installed an electric traveling crane weighing 31,000 pounds, and capable of hoisting material weighing ten tons. ⁴⁸⁶ The crane was made up of two component parts — the bridge of the crane and the carriage. The bridge consisted of two heavy parallel girders running across the width of the building. Mounted on each end of this bridge construction were two double flanged wheels which fit in the track or crane rails, which in turn rested upon longitudinal beams in the building.

The crane carriage was mounted on the bridge and could be moved along the bridge across the building. The carriage contained the hoist mechanism. The crane was powered by three 3-phase-, 25-cycle, alternating current electric motors. The bridge motor propelled the crane along the rails- or track up and down the length of the building; the trolley motor moved the crane carriage, from which the hook was suspended, along the bridge of the crane; and the third or hoist motor raised and lowered the hook with its load.

The crane was constructed in this manner so that it was possible to pick up a load in any part 'of the building and carry it to any other place in the entire length or breadth of the building. The longitudinal beams on each- side of the building upon which the track rails rested and were fastened were placed in the building when it was first- erected. In addition to- the use which was thereafter made' of them in the installation and operation of the crane, they also served to strengthen the building, and were attached to the beams or columns which supported them and formed part of the building itself. On April 16th, 1924, McNamara Brothers Company executed a mortgagá on said land and improvements to the Guardian Building Association of Baltimore, to- secure- the payment of $21,840.

The property conveyed by the- mortgage was described as “all that lot of ground situated and lying in Westport, in Baltimore City * * * together with the improvements thereon, the rights and appurtenances thereunto belonging or appertaining”. In 1926 the McNamara Brothers Company erected an addition to- the building of the same- size as the original building. In doing so- the track rails were extended to the ⁴⁸⁷ full length of the enlarged building, so as to extend the operation of the crane to the entire building. On June 22nd, 1928, the building association loaned McNamara Brothers Company $10,400 additional, and took a second mortgage upon the property; it being the property described in the former mortgage.

On June 28th, 1928, McNamara Brothers Company borrowed $8,000 from William A. Byan, one of the appellees, and to secure such loan the company executed to Byan a mortgage conveying not only the property mentioned and described in the two mortgages given to the Guardian Building Association, but also “the plant machinery and equipment, situated in and upon said lot of ground,” specifically naming the various pieces of machinery so conveyed, including “one ten-ton crane,” which is the crane mentioned in these proceedings. In 1932 McNamara Brothers Company defaulted under its mortgages to the building association and to Byan. On April 1st, 1932, a decree of foreclosure upon the building association mortgage, dated April 16th, 1924, was granted, and on the next day a decree was passed by the same court upon the Byan mortgage. The property embraced in the building association mortgage was offered at public sale at 3 P. M., April 26th, 1932, and was bought in by the association.

At 3.15 P. M. on the same day, and at the same place, the trustee named under the decree of foreclosure of the Byan mortgage sold the machinery and equipment, including the crane. This sale was duly reported to the court and after the expiration of the time named in the nisi order it was finally ratified and confirmed. On July 13th, 1932, after final ratification and confirmation of the sale made to the building association, the latter sold and conveyed the property bought by it unto the Consolidated Gas, .Electric Light & Power Company of Baltimore, the appellant in this case. Upon being told by Bobert J. McNamara, that he, the agent of the purchaser under the Byan mortgage, intendedlo remove the crane from the building, the appellant filed its ⁴⁸⁸ bill for an injunction, asking that Robert J. MdSTamara be restrained from so doing.

The court ordered an injunction to issue as prayed unless cause to the contrary be shown on or before the time named therein. The defendant Robert J. MdSTamara answered the bill, averring therein that the electric crane mentioned is not a fixture and not a part of the building, but is a personal chattel to which Ryan as purchaser had acquired title under the foreclosure proceedings; that Ryan did not claim the steel tracks upon which the electric crane is operated. These rested upon and were fastened to the longitudinal beams which formed a part of the structure of the building. In addition, the answer averred that the damages, if any, caused by the removal of the crane, would be susceptible of definite and adequate compensation, and that the court was without jurisdiction to determine the ownership and title of it until that question was first determined in an action at law; and because of such want of jurisdiction in the equity court, Ryan had instituted an action at law which was then pending.

At this juncture in the proceedings, the parties entered into a written stipulation by which it was agreed that “the title to the electric traveling crane, which is the subject matter of this proceeding, shall be fully and finally heard and determined at the hearing of this cause”; and that the determination so reached “shall be binding and conclusive upon the parties to this cause, independent and exclusive of any common law action instituted to determine said title,” reserving, however, the right to appeal from the final decree passed in these proceedings. Ikwas also agreed that William A. Ryan would “dismiss his suit in trover against the Consolidated Gas Electric Light and Power Company of Baltimore” and that by “appropriate petition addressed to this Court” he should be made a party defendant in this cause. As suggested, a petition was filed and Ryan was made a party defendant “with leave to assert and prosecute his rights as such defendant and with leave to adopt the allegations and averments in the answer of Robert J. MdSTamara, ⁴⁸⁹ defendant, filed herein as his answer to the bill of complaint”. It was also orally stipulated by counsel for the respective parties that the “McNamara Brothers Company was engaged in the manufacture of heavy steel boilers and tanks and other heavy steel equipment of various kinds prior to the foreclosure of the mortgages mentioned in the complainant’s bill, and that the appellant is now rising these premises for the storage of large and heavy equipment, the handling of which is facilitated by the crane, and also for the storage of large supplies such as boiler tubes and creosoted lumber”.

The case was heard by the court, and at the conclusion of the evidence a decree was passed on March 11th, 1933, by which it was “ordered and decreed, that the ten-ton Chesapeake Electric Traveling Crane is not an appurtenance and fixture of the land and improvements owned by the plaintiff in pursuance of its deed from the Guardian Building Association of Baltimore 'City, a corporation, dated July 13th, 1932 * * * but that the title to said Chesapeake Electric Traveling Crane is vested in and is the property of the defendant, William A. Ryan, in pursuance of the foreclosure proceeding's instituted by him in this court upon a mortgage held by him specifically covering said Chesapeake Electric Traveling Crane with other chattels and personal property -x -x- * a-¡. ppg p-gjqpj saie 0.f wPicP -under said foreclosure proceedings the said William A. Ryan! became the purchaser ,of said electric traveling crane, and which sale was reported to this court-, and after due notice by advertisement was ratified and confirmed by this court”. It is from this decree of the court that the appeal in this. case was taken. The question to he decided is: Was the electric traveling crane mentioned herein a fixture or a chattel ? The controversy here is to be determined upon the law .applicable to mortgagor and mortgagee or vendor and vendee, where the rigor of the common law rule