Traders Bank v. First National Bank

Wells, J. The question in this case is, Are certain articles of property described in the plaintiff’s petition and consisting of counters, shelving, drawers, and a prescription case, located in a certain building formerly used as a drug-store, in Kirwin, Kan., personal property, or a part of the real estate upon which they were placed and used? In cases of this kind, the intent of the party in placing the property in the building is a material question in determining whether it became a part of the realty or not. Shoemaker v. Simpson, 16 Kan. 43; Eaves v. Estes, 10 id. 314; A. T. & S. F. Rld. Co. v. Morgan, 42 id. 23; Winslow v. Bromich, 54 id. 300. Intent, purpose or design is a question of fact. 19 Am. & Eng. Encyc. of Law, 657. Whether the property in controversy in this case became a part of the realty or not, is largely a question of fact, upon which the court below was author [401] ized by the evidence to find as it did; and under the well-established practice of our Supreme Court, such finding will not be disturbed by a reviewing court. The judgment of the court below will be affirmed.