Meador v. J. A. Fay & Egan Co.
109 F. 632, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4235
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided May 31, 1901·No. No. 1,056·Published·Cited by 13 cases
Opinion
The questions arising in this case were properly ruled by Judge EEWMAÍí, and we only supplement his opinion found in the record by citing Lumber Co. v. Kiser, 91 Ga. 643, 649, 17 S. E. 972, 974, and Filer & Stowell Co. v. Empire Lumber Co., 91 Ga. 657, 18 S. E. 359. In the first-entitled case it is said:
[635]*635“It therefore makes no difference whether the machinery, efe., be in fact personalty or not, as the statute treats the entire establishment, with all its equipments, as realty, relatively to the lien allowed by Code, § 1979. It is the manifest purpose of the statute that these liens shall cover not only the land upon which the mills, factories, etc., are situated, but also the structures themselves, and all the appliances necessary to their existence and complete running order as such establishments.”
The petition for revision is denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Meador v. J. A. Fay & Egan Co., 109 F. 632, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4235 (5th Cir. 1901).
109 F. 632 (Meador v. J. A. Fay & Egan Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Commercial Credit Co. v. Davidson
112 F.2d 54 (Fifth Circuit, 1940)
Middle Georgia Lumber Co. v. Hunt
186 S.E. 714 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)
Garrison v. Johnson
66 F.2d 227 (Tenth Circuit, 1933)
City of Dallas v. Ryan
62 F.2d 959 (Fifth Circuit, 1933)
In Re Brannon
62 F.2d 959 (Fifth Circuit, 1933)
In re Purvis
293 F. 102 (S.D. Mississippi, 1923)
Campbell Paint & Varnish Co. v. Hall
95 So. 641 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1923)
E. A. Kinsey Co. v. Heckermann
224 F. 308 (Sixth Circuit, 1915)
Norris v. Trenholm
209 F. 827 (Fifth Circuit, 1913)
Moore v. Green
145 F. 472 (Fourth Circuit, 1906)
Mott v. Wissler Min. Co.
135 F. 697 (Fourth Circuit, 1905)
Pflueger v. Lewis Foundry & Machine Co.
134 F. 28 (Sixth Circuit, 1904)
In re Antigo Screen Door Co.
123 F. 249 (Seventh Circuit, 1903)