CHATTEL OR FIXTURE.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXX, Issue 5385, 8 February 1929, Page 3

CHATTEL OR FIXTURE.

DEFINITION OF WATER-HEATER. NGATEA FARMERS AT VARIANCE. The question whether a cowshed water-heater was a chattel which could be moved by a tenant or a fixture which must remain as a part of thq land was the point in an action argued at the Magistrate’s Court, Thames, on Tuesday. L. M. Murray (Mr E. L. Walton) claimed from R. Phillips, farmer, Ngatea (Mr Purnell), £46, being balance due bn goods jwhieh Phillips had agreed to purchase; for £66 when he took over Murray’s farm at Hopai. A depcisit of £2O had been paid, £3 had been allowed by Murray, and £2B 12s had been paid into Court recently.

Outlining the case, Mr Walton explained that some time after Phillips agreed to purchase the goods he had declined to pay unless Murray prodused a clepn receipt and shelved that the millung machine and l water-heater were not a part of the farm which he had purchased) from Murray’s mortgagees. He did not then raise; a question concerning the quality of the goods, but later, after consulting a solicitor, had raised this aspect, and also the question whet'hqr the items were chattels or part of the freehold. Murray had gone so far as to make good some of the defects. The goods which Murray had sold for £66 had c,ost £244' four yejars ago. Mr Purnell admitted that a milking machine had been held to be a chattel, but he submitted that -the waterheater was not a part of the milking machine, but was a fixture by reason of the manner in which it had been attached to. the wall of the shed.

Mr Walton argued it was not a fixture, and that Phillips had understood this from the sellers of the farm. Phillips had therefore agreed to purchase the water-heater together with the various parts of the milking machine. A skim-milk pump wich was similarly attached to the hall ptf the milking shed was not purchased by Phillips and was rejmoved by Murray. No objection had been raised to, this.

Receipts showing Murray’s clear title to the goods were produced.

The defendant gave evidence- concerning the method by which the water-heater had been attached to the building, and t'he defeats in the machinery which,. he stated, had not been pointed out to- him by Murray. P. Benner gave evidence 'of his discovery of the defects in the machinery. He admitted that he'was a mate of Rhillips. ■ In delivering judgment the magistrate said it was evident that Phillips had bought the plant, including the; water-heater, at one-quarter of its cost. The Court did not hold that the water-heater was a part of the freehold, far it was used with and had become part of the milking, plant. Regarding the defects in the machinery, he preferred to beliqve the evidence of Murray that these had been pointed out. Plaintiff hadl given his evidence clearly and in detail, and would bq awarded judgment for the balance of the amount claimed, £l6 18s, with costs £4 10s. v ■