Morgan v. Arthurs & Co.

3 Watts 140
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided September 15, 1834·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam. —

Gray v. Holdship is stronger than the present case, and entirely decisive of the point in controversy. A copper kettle in a brew-house might perhaps be more readily conceived, in favour of trade, not to be a fixture or part of the building, than the engine which propels a steam saw-mill, and which does the usual ofiice of a water wheel; for it would not be pretended that the running gears of a mill are not part of the building. The words of the law are very general, and it is impossible to doubt that the plaintiffs are within its protection.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Morgan v. Arthurs & Co., 3 Watts 140 (Pa. 1834).

3 Watts 140 (Morgan v. Arthurs & Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re Rodgers & Hite, Inc.
143 F. 594 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1906)
Wheeler v. Pierce, Kelley & Co.
31 A. 649 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1895)
Kelley v. Border City Mills
126 Mass. 148 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1879)
Parrish & Hazard's Appeal
83 Pa. 111 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1877)
Overton v. Williston
31 Pa. 155 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1858)
Heaton v. Findlay
12 Pa. 304 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1849)
Walker v. Sherman
20 Wend. 636 (New York Supreme Court, 1839)
Oves v. Ogelsby
7 Watts 106 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1838)
Gale v. Ward
14 Mass. 352 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1817)