Vail v. Weaver
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Vail v. Weaver, 132 Pa. 363 (Pa. 1890)
19 A. 138; 1890 Pa. LEXIS 822
Clark, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Paxson, Sterrett, Williams
Vail v. Weaver
Opinion of the Court
The principal question in this case was, whether the machinery and fixtures of the electric plant, which were placed in the tack-works, were placed there permanently or not. If they were temporary fixtures, placed there for a temporary purpose, their sale under the writ of fieri facias passed a good title. Mere physical annexation is no longer the rule. It is a question of intention. The intention to annex, whether rightfully or wrongfully, is the legal criterion: Hill v. Sewald, 53 Pa. 271; Seeger v. Pettit, 77 Pa. 437; Morris’s App., 88 Pa. 368. This question was submitted to the jury by the learned court below under adequate instructions, and their verdict ends the case.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- CARL M. VAIL v. H. P. WEAVER
- Cited By
- 26 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- The engine, machinery and appliances of an electric light plant do not pass with the real estate upon which it is operated, to the purchaser of the realty at a sale under a mortgage judgment, unless it was the intention to make the plant a part of the realty when it was erected. Mere physical annexation is no longer the test: Hill v. Sewald, 53 Pa. 271; Seeger v. Pettit, 77 Pa. 437 ; Morris’s App., 88 Pa. 368.