# Canon-McMillan School District v. Bioni

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · July 13, 1989 · 127 Pa. Commw. 317

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9752544

## Case

- **Full name:** CANON-McMILLAN SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant, v. Teddy S. BIONI, Appellee
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** July 13, 1989
- **Citations:** 127 Pa. Commw. 317; 561 A.2d 853; 1989 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 488
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Crumlish
- **Judges:** Crumlish, Doyle, Barry, Colins, Palladino, McGinley, Smith, Craig
- **Cited by:** 25 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9752544

## Opinion text

OPINION
CRUMLISH, Jr., President Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent for the reasons set forth in my dissent to this Court’s previous majority disposition in Can *323 on-McMillan I. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s instruction to decide the legal question of whether a wood lathe constitutes realty or personalty, the law of fixtures places chattels used in connection with real estate into three classes. Clayton v. Lienhard, 312 Pa. 433 , 167 A. 321 (1933). This lathe, physically connected with the real estate but so affixed as to be removable, falls into the third class, which may be realty or personalty, “depending upon the intention of the parties....” Id., 312 Pa. at 437 , 167 A. at 322 . (emphasis added). Intent, or state of mind, though not easily susceptible of proof, must be inferred from the facts.
I remain convinced that the jury properly performed its fact-finding function in determining that the School District intended the lathe as a fixture. While the opposite conclusion might also be drawn from the underlying facts, such a reweighing of the evidence is not the function of an appellate court where the jury’s conclusion is not patently unreasonable.
DOYLE, J., joins in this dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9752544. Public record. Not legal advice.