In re Hemmer

N.D. New York

In re Hemmer

280 F. 414, 1922 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 826

DecidedMay 6, 1922

StatusPublished

This text of 280 F. 414 (In re Hemmer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Hemmer, 280 F. 414, 1922 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 826 (N.D.N.Y. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

RAY, District Judge.

In view of the conditional contracts of sale and the circumstances under which the personal property, machinery, etc., was placed in the building I think a question of fact is presented for the determination of the court.

I do not think it was intended to make this machinery a part of the realty, and .in view of the contracts of conditional sale, and what was done by way of attaching same to the realty, do not think the personal property in question ever became a part of the realty and subject to the mortgage lien. True, a sort of foundation had to be placed under the boiler, and it is also true that a wall was erected to protect same; but this property can be removed with very little,' if any, damage to these walls or to: the building.

In view of Tifft v. Horton, 53 N. Y. 377, 13 Am. Rep. 537: Ford v. Cobb, 20 N. Y. 344: Davis v. Bliss, 187 N. Y. 77. 79 N. E. 851, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 458: Sisson v. Hibbard, 75 N. Y. 542, and other cases of like import, I hold that this personal property in ciuestion did not become a part of the realtv, and subiect to the lien of the mortgages, and that the trustee in bankruptcv is entitled to the same.

There will be an order accordingly.

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

RAY, District Judge.

In view of the conditional contracts of sale and the circumstances under which the personal property, machinery, etc., was placed in the building I think a question of fact is presented for the determination of the court.

I do not think it was intended to make this machinery a part of the realty, and .in view of the contracts of conditional sale, and what was done by way of attaching same to the realty, do not think the personal property in question ever became a part of the realty and subject to the mortgage lien. True, a sort of foundation had to be placed under the boiler, and it is also true that a wall was erected to protect same; but this property can be removed with very little,' if any, damage to these walls or to: the building.

In view of Tifft v. Horton, 53 N. Y. 377, 13 Am. Rep. 537: Ford v. Cobb, 20 N. Y. 344: Davis v. Bliss, 187 N. Y. 77. 79 N. E. 851, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 458: Sisson v. Hibbard, 75 N. Y. 542, and other cases of like import, I hold that this personal property in ciuestion did not become a part of the realtv, and subiect to the lien of the mortgages, and that the trustee in bankruptcv is entitled to the same.

There will be an order accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 F. 414, 1922 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 826, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-hemmer-nynd-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack