Oves v. Ogelsby

7 Watts 106
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided May 15, 1838·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

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

Oves v. Ogelsby, 7 Watts 106 (Pa. 1838).

7 Watts 106 (Oves v. Ogelsby) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

C. R. Fedrick, Inc. v. State Board of Equalizer
204 Cal. App. 3d 252 (California Court of Appeal, 1988)
Arnold v. Goldfield Third Chance Mining Co.
32 Nev. 447 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1910)
In re Rodgers & Hite, Inc.
143 F. 594 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1906)
Roseville Alta Min. Co. v. Iowa Gulch Min. Co.
15 Colo. 29 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1890)
Fratt v. Whittier
58 Cal. 126 (California Supreme Court, 1881)
State ex rel. Kidney v. Marshall & Co.
4 Mo. App. 29 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1877)
Moore v. Smith
24 Ill. 512 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1860)
Merritt & Bourne v. Judd & Byrne
14 Cal. 59 (California Supreme Court, 1859)
Overton v. Williston
31 Pa. 155 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1858)
Sands v. Pfeiffer
10 Cal. 258 (California Supreme Court, 1858)
Heaton v. Findlay
12 Pa. 304 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1849)
Walker v. Sherman
20 Wend. 636 (New York Supreme Court, 1839)