Pyle v. Pennock

2 Watts & Serg. 390
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedDecember 15, 1841
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 2 Watts & Serg. 390 (Pyle v. Pennock) 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
Pyle v. Pennock, 2 Watts & Serg. 390 (Pa. 1841).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The principle of this case is settled by Voorhis v. Freeman, (ante 116). As regards the rolls, it is that case in [392]*392terms; and as regards the iron plates, it is stronger still. These constituted the floor of the mill, and were, according to the case stated, an indispensable part of it. It surely would not be thought that a brick floor is not a part of the building, or that the bricks would not pass by a conveyance of it: and the nature of the material of which the floor consists, cannot make a difference as to the character of the thing. Of what importance can it be whether the plates were made for a floor in the first instance, or for something else 1 Stones quarried for the purpose of being used in a wall, would as readily pass as a part of the realty when laid as a pavement, as if they had been otherwise worked up in the building. Nor is it of consequence that these plates were held to the foundation by their gravity. The mill itself was held no otherwise; they were therefore equally a part of it, and passed as such to the defendant below.

Judgment for the plaintiff below reversed, and judgment here for the defendant.

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

Related

United Bonding Insurance v. Minichiello
221 So. 2d 220 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1969)
Mason Appeal
75 Pa. D. & C. 1 (Beaver County Court of Common Pleas, 1950)
United Laundries, Inc. v. Board of Property Assessment
58 A.2d 833 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1948)
Mortgage Bond Co. v. Stephens
1937 OK 612 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1937)
Commonwealth Tr. Co. of Pbg. v. Harkins
167 A. 278 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1933)
Colvin v. Crown Coal & Coke Co.
90 Pa. Super. 560 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1927)
Titus v. Poland Coal Co.
119 A. 540 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1923)
Big Beaver Creek Corp. v. Beaver County
37 Pa. Super. 250 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1908)
Fechet v. Drake
12 P. 694 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1887)
Hamilton v. Huntley
78 Ind. 521 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1881)
Hill v. Sewald
53 Pa. 271 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1867)
Christian v. Dripps
28 Pa. 271 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1857)
Barclay v. Tracy
5 Watts & Serg. 45 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1842)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 Watts & Serg. 390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pyle-v-pennock-pa-1841.