Carpenter v. Allen

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Carpenter v. Allen

22 N.E. 900, 150 Mass. 281, 1889 Mass. LEXIS 77

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedNovember 30, 1889

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 22 N.E. 900 (Carpenter v. Allen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carpenter v. Allen, 22 N.E. 900, 150 Mass. 281, 1889 Mass. LEXIS 77 (Mass. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Morton, C. J.

This is an action of replevin of an engine and boiler. The property replevied was formerly owned by Reuben and Paris Rich, who in June, 1883, attached it to their factory in Charlton, and at the same time mortgaged it as personal property to the plaintiff. The Superior Court was justified in finding, from the fact of the giving of this mortgage, that the mortgagors agreed that the property should not become a part of the realty, but should remain personalty. The land upon which the building stood was under a mortgage to one Walker, at the time the property was attached to it. It was adjudicated in Carpenter v. Walker, 140 Mass. 416, that the property was personal property, and passed to the plaintiff under his mortgage. This adjudication was made upon the same state of facts existing in the case at bar, so far as the title of the plaintiff is concerned.

The defendant, in some manner not disclosed, came into possession of the property after it was severed from the realty, but he does not claim any title to it, either under the Riches, or Walker, or anybody else.

It was competent for the Superior Court to find that the property passed to the plaintiff under his mortgage, and that he is entitled to maintain this action, there having been a breach of the conditions of the mortgage; Carpenter v. Walker, ubi supra, and cases cited; and the exceptions taken by the defendant George L. Allen must be overruled.

Exceptions overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Morton, C. J.

This is an action of replevin of an engine and boiler. The property replevied was formerly owned by Reuben and Paris Rich, who in June, 1883, attached it to their factory in Charlton, and at the same time mortgaged it as personal property to the plaintiff. The Superior Court was justified in finding, from the fact of the giving of this mortgage, that the mortgagors agreed that the property should not become a part of the realty, but should remain personalty. The land upon which the building stood was under a mortgage to one Walker, at the time the property was attached to it. It was adjudicated in Carpenter v. Walker, 140 Mass. 416, that the property was personal property, and passed to the plaintiff under his mortgage. This adjudication was made upon the same state of facts existing in the case at bar, so far as the title of the plaintiff is concerned.

The defendant, in some manner not disclosed, came into possession of the property after it was severed from the realty, but he does not claim any title to it, either under the Riches, or Walker, or anybody else.

It was competent for the Superior Court to find that the property passed to the plaintiff under his mortgage, and that he is entitled to maintain this action, there having been a breach of the conditions of the mortgage; Carpenter v. Walker, ubi supra, and cases cited; and the exceptions taken by the defendant George L. Allen must be overruled.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 N.E. 900, 150 Mass. 281, 1889 Mass. LEXIS 77, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carpenter-v-allen-mass-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack