Raddin v. Arnold
This text of 116 Mass. 270 (Raddin v. Arnold) 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.
Opinion
It does not appear by the bill of exceptions, and was not suggested at the argument, that there was any evidence that the engine and boiler were set upon the premises without the consent of thé vendor. The only exception relied on is to the refusal of the instruction requested, and to the instruction given; and cannot be sustained. Whatever might have been the right of removal, the engine and boiler, so long as they were affixed to the realty in the manner stated in the bill of exceptions, were not mere chattels and therefore this action in [272]*272the nature of trover will not lie for them. Richardson v. Copeland, 6 Gray, 536. Clary v. Owen, 15 Gray, 522. Guthrie v. Jones, 108 Mass. 191. Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
116 Mass. 270, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 76, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raddin-v-arnold-mass-1874.