TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

President, Directors, & Co. v. Emerson

The President, Directors, and Company, of the Union Bank versus James Emerson

President, Directors v. Emerson, 15 Mass. 159 (1818)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 15, 1818
Citations
15 Mass. 159
Cited by 22
Headnotes
A kettle in a fulling-mill, used for dyeing cloth, being set in brick-work, passed to the mortgagee of the mill.
Summary
Trover for a copper kettle. One Kellogg, in the year 1800, being seised in fee of a parcel of land in Bridgton, on which was a fulling-mill, mortgaged the same, without mentioning the appurtenances, to the plaintiffs in fee; and in 1815 the plaintiffs, by their agent, entered upon the mortgaged premises, in presence of two witnesses, of whom the defendant was one. The kettle in question was fixed in brick-work in the mill at the time of executing the mortgage, and was then, and for a long time after, used as a dye-kettle for dyeing cloth. When the plaintiffs took possession under their mortgage, the mill was in a dilapidated state, not having been used for some years previous; and the brick-work, in which the kettle was set, had in part fallen down. Soon afterwards Kellogg took the kettle out of the mill, and sold it to the defendant, he knowing it to be the same.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

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. (a)

Defendant defaulted Vide 3 Powell on Mortg. by Coventry, 1041, d. note, Am. ed

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 22 cases

View all citing references →
1824–1825: 11828–1829: 11836–1837: 11838–1839: 21840–1841: 11842–1843: 21844–1845: 21848–1849: 21850–1851: 11854–1855: 41858–1859: 21866–1867: 11876–1877: 11900–1901: 118242026peak 1854 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Winslow v. Merchants Insurance45 Mass. 306 (1842)
  2. Walker v. Sherman20 Wend. 636 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1839)
  3. Gray v. Holdship17 Serg. & Rawle 413 (1828)
  4. Merritt & Bourne v. Judd & Byrne14 Cal. 59 (1859)
  5. Snedeker v. Warring12 N.Y. 170 (1854)
  6. Sparks v. State Bank7 Blackf. 469 (1845)

Most recent

  1. Williams v. Chicago Exhibition Co.58 N.E. 611 (Ill. 1900)
  2. State ex rel. Kidney v. Marshall & Co.4 Mo. App. 29 (1877)
  3. Bringholff v. Munzenmaier20 Iowa 513 (1866)
  4. Merritt & Bourne v. Judd & Byrne14 Cal. 59 (1859)
  5. Sands v. Pfeiffer10 Cal. 258 (1858)
  6. Harkness v. Sears26 Ala. 493 (1855)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list