Van Ness v. Pacard

Van Ness (plaintiff) owned a lot in the city of Washington. Van Ness rented the lot to Pacard (defendant) for seven years at a rental price of $112.50 per year, with Pacard having a right to purchase the lot at any time for $1,875. Pacard built a two-story wooden dwelling house, a shed, a brick- or stone-foundation cellar, and a brick chimney. Not only was Pacard a carpenter, but also Pacard testified that he built the building so that he could work as a dairyman. Specifically, Pacard indicated that the cellar, which contained a spring, was his milk cellar and that Pacard kept and cleaned his tools in the cellar. Pacard also testified to doing some carpentry work in the main house. Matters got heated when Pacard tore down all of his buildings near the end of the lease. Van Ness then sued Pacard for waste to the premises based on Pacard’s tearing down of the house, which was a fixture. Under traditional English common law, whatever fixtures were built onto leased premises became part of those premises and could not subsequently be removed. That said, the application could vary even within that general law. The rule was read most tightly in situations involving an executor committing waste on the premises of an heir but more loosely between a landlord and a tenant. In fact, British law had allowed the removal of fixtures made to carry on business, although this had not been extended to agricultural implements. Pacard won a judgment at trial, but Van Ness appealed to the Supreme Court.