Oves v. Ogelsby
This text of 7 Watts 106 (Oves v. Ogelsby) 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.
Opinion
Privilege for the benefit of trade, holds only betwixt landlord and tenant; not betwixt third persons and the owner of the soil]: as is exemplified by Morgan v. Arthurs, 3 Watts 140, and Lemar v. Miles, 4 Watts 330. In the first of these, a steam engine ' set up by the owner to drive a saw mill, was held to be a part of the freehold and subject to a mechanic’s lien; while in the second, an [107]*107engine set up by a lessee, to drive a salt works, was seized and sold as personal by his creditors. Here the engine was erected by the owner of the mill, and it was consequently a part of the freehold. Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
7 Watts 106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oves-v-ogelsby-pa-1838.