Coleman v. People's-Pittsburgh Trust Co.

Third Circuit

Coleman v. People's-Pittsburgh Trust Co.

61 F.2d 128, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 4207

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·Decided August 25, 1932·No. No. 4858·Published

Opinion

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

In this case the premises were rented as a garage and the substantial part of the tools, lathes, etc., were attached to the realty and were fixtures. These fixtures enhanced the value of the premises for such use. Indeed, tools of this character were necessary and indispensable in the work of a garage. The fact that some hand tools accompanied the lease is a mere minor incident. Under the Pennsylvania authorities, Mickle v. Miles, 31 Pa. 20, and VettePs Appeal, 99 Pa. 52, it is quite clear that the landlord could distrain for rent. The other questions involved have had due consideration. Finding no error in the court’s action, the decree below is affirmed.

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

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

In this case the premises were rented as a garage and the substantial part of the tools, lathes, etc., were attached to the realty and were fixtures. These fixtures enhanced the value of the premises for such use. Indeed, tools of this character were necessary and indispensable in the work of a garage. The fact that some hand tools accompanied the lease is a mere minor incident. Under the Pennsylvania authorities, Mickle v. Miles, 31 Pa. 20, and VettePs Appeal, 99 Pa. 52, it is quite clear that the landlord could distrain for rent. The other questions involved have had due consideration. Finding no error in the court’s action, the decree below is affirmed.

Coleman v. People's-Pittsburgh Trust Co., 61 F.2d 128, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 4207 (3d Cir. 1932).

Pincite

61 F.2d 128 (Coleman v. People's-Pittsburgh Trust Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related