President, Directors, & Co. v. Emerson
Cases that cite this one
17 later published cases cite this decision.
- Winslow v. Merchants Insurance (Mass. 1842)
- Walker v. Sherman (New York Supreme Court 1839)
- Gray v. Holdship (Pa. 1828)
- State ex rel. Kidney v. Marshall & Co. (Mo. Ct. App. 1877)
- Merritt & Bourne v. Judd & Byrne (Cal. 1859)
- Sands v. Pfeiffer (Cal. 1858)
- Harkness v. Sears (Ala. 1855)
- Snedeker v. . Warring (N.Y. 1854)
- Snedeker v. Warring (N.Y. 1854)
- Baker v. Jordan (Ohio 1854)
- Conner v. Coffin (Superior Court of New Hampshire 1851)
- Baker v. Davis (Superior Court of New Hampshire 1849)
- Corliss v. McLagin (Me. 1848)
- Sparks v. State Bank (Ind. 1845)
- Robinson v. Preswick (N.Y. Ch. 1838)
- Noble v. Bosworth (Mass. 1837)
- Powell v. Monson & Brimfield Manuf'g Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts 1824)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
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.
Defendant defaulted
Vide 3 Powell on Mortg. by Coventry, 1041, d. note, Am. ed
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.