Oakland Cemetery Co. v. Bancroft

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Oakland Cemetery Co. v. Bancroft

28 A. 1021, 161 Pa. 197, 1894 Pa. LEXIS 664

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 16, 1894

DocketAppeal, No. 294

StatusPublished

This text of 28 A. 1021 (Oakland Cemetery Co. v. Bancroft) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Oakland Cemetery Co. v. Bancroft, 28 A. 1021, 161 Pa. 197, 1894 Pa. LEXIS 664 (Pa. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

We think it too plain for argument that the articles levied upon in execution in this case as personal property are fixed in the realty and are a part thereof, and can in no sense be regarded as personal property. While the Mount Auburn Company was the owner of the cemetery, a burial lot was inclosed [199]*199by a stone curbing and a monument was erected on tbe ground, consisting of a stone foundation extending down below the frost line, and upon this foundation a marble base was placed surmounted by a marble shaft, and upon the shaft the statue in question was erected. The whole of the structure was cemented together and constituted a solid mass. The entire work, including the curbing, was built by the cemetery company for the ornamentation of the grounds and manifestly was intended to be a permanent part of the cemetery property. In no sense can it be regarded as a trade fixture. As this subject was the controlling feature of the contest its determination ends the case.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

We think it too plain for argument that the articles levied upon in execution in this case as personal property are fixed in the realty and are a part thereof, and can in no sense be regarded as personal property. While the Mount Auburn Company was the owner of the cemetery, a burial lot was inclosed [199]*199by a stone curbing and a monument was erected on tbe ground, consisting of a stone foundation extending down below the frost line, and upon this foundation a marble base was placed surmounted by a marble shaft, and upon the shaft the statue in question was erected. The whole of the structure was cemented together and constituted a solid mass. The entire work, including the curbing, was built by the cemetery company for the ornamentation of the grounds and manifestly was intended to be a permanent part of the cemetery property. In no sense can it be regarded as a trade fixture. As this subject was the controlling feature of the contest its determination ends the case.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A. 1021, 161 Pa. 197, 1894 Pa. LEXIS 664, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oakland-cemetery-co-v-bancroft-pa-1894.