President, Directors, & Co. v. Emerson

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

President, Directors, & Co. v. Emerson

15 Mass. 159

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMay 15, 1818

StatusPublished

Cited by22 cases

This text of 15 Mass. 159 (President, Directors, & Co. v. Emerson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

President, Directors, & Co. v. Emerson, 15 Mass. 159 (Mass. 1818).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This kettle was a part of the íealty, and passed to the plaintiffs by Kellogg’s mortgage. It could not be removed without actual injury to the mill. It is true * that, by late decisions, tenants have been favored in questions of this kind, and the strictness of the ancient law has been much relaxed. And in the case before us, had the defendant, after making the mortgage deed, put this kettle into the mill, we should have considered him authorized to remove it before delivering possession to the plaintiffs. This fixture was essential to the use of the mill. It was attached to it at the time of executing the mortgage, and it remained there when the plaintiffs took possession. They had a right to retain it; and the defendant must answer to them for the value of it.

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

Per Curiam.

This kettle was a part of the íealty, and passed to the plaintiffs by Kellogg’s mortgage. It could not be removed without actual injury to the mill. It is true * that, by late decisions, tenants have been favored in questions of this kind, and the strictness of the ancient law has been much relaxed. And in the case before us, had the defendant, after making the mortgage deed, put this kettle into the mill, we should have considered him authorized to remove it before delivering possession to the plaintiffs. This fixture was essential to the use of the mill. It was attached to it at the time of executing the mortgage, and it remained there when the plaintiffs took possession. They had a right to retain it; and the defendant must answer to them for the value of it.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 Mass. 159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/president-directors-co-v-emerson-mass-1818.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack