Kirwan v. Latour

1 H. & J. 289
CourtGeneral Court of Virginia
DecidedMay 15, 1802
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 1 H. & J. 289 (Kirwan v. Latour) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering General Court of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kirwan v. Latour, 1 H. & J. 289 (Va. Super. Ct. 1802).

Opinion

Chase, Ch. J.

The question arises upon the operation of the schedule annexed to the fieri facias, and the sheriff’s deed. It must be considered as a case between vendor and vendee, the sheriff standing in the place of vendor, and selling his right. In this' case every thing passed which was annexed to the freehold, If the deed had been for the conveyance of the house and lot only, without mentioning the improvements, if would have carried all things fixed to the freehold. The case of vendor and vendee is different from that of landlord and tenant. In the latter case the law allows the tenant to remove many, things which may be considered as fixed. This is for the benefit of tradej and where a tenant puts up any thing for the purpose of carring on his trade, he may remove it. The pumps, cisterns, iron grating, and door, distillery and horse mills, passed by this deed, but not the joists, vats, buckets, pickets and fossits, which are not fixed to the freehold. The Ch. J. cited Esp. 358, 359. Salk. 368. Bull. N. P. 34.

Verdict for the plaintiff, and damages assessed to 418l 17's 6d current money, Judgment on the verdict.

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

Related

Sycamore Management Group, LLC v. Coosa Cable Co.
42 So. 3d 90 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2010)
LaFarge Bldg. Materials, Inc. v. Stribling
880 So. 2d 415 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2003)
Colonial Pipeline Co. v. State Department of Assessments and Taxation
806 A.2d 648 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2002)
Solter v. MacMillan
128 A. 356 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1925)
Western Maryland Dairy, Inc. v. Maryland Wrecking & Equipment Co.
126 A. 135 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1924)
Warren Manufacturing Co. v. Mayor of Baltimore
86 A. 502 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1913)
L. A. Thompson Scenic Railway Co. v. Young
44 A. 1024 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1899)
Cohen v. Kyler
27 Mo. 122 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1858)
M'Kim v. Mason
3 Md. Ch. 186 (Maryland Chancery Ct, 1852)
Coombs v. Jordan
3 Md. Ch. 284 (Maryland Chancery Ct, 1810)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 H. & J. 289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kirwan-v-latour-vagensess-1802.