Meador v. J. A. Fay & Egan Co.
Meador v. J. A. Fay & Egan Co.
109 F. 632; 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4235
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision.
- Commercial Credit Co. v. Davidson (5th Cir. 1940)
- Middle Georgia Lumber Co. v. Hunt (Ga. Ct. App. 1936)
- In re Brannon (5th Cir. 1933)
- City of Dallas v. Ryan (5th Cir. 1933)
- Garrison v. Johnson (10th Cir. 1933)
- Campbell Paint & Varnish Co. v. Hall (Miss. 1923)
- In re Purvis (District Court, S.D. Mississippi 1923)
- E. A. Kinsey Co. v. Heckermann (6th Cir. 1915)
- Norris v. Trenholm (5th Cir. 1913)
- Moore v. Green (4th Cir. 1906)
- Mott v. Wissler Min. Co. (4th Cir. 1905)
- Pflueger v. Lewis Foundry & Machine Co. (6th Cir. 1904)
- In re Antigo Screen Door Co. (7th Cir. 1903)
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
The questions arising in this case were properly ruled by Judge EEWMAÍí, and we only supplement his opinion found in the record by citing Lumber Co. v. Kiser, 91 Ga. 643, 649, 17 S. E. 972, 974, and Filer & Stowell Co. v. Empire Lumber Co., 91 Ga. 657, 18 S. E. 359. In the first-entitled case it is said:
*635 “It therefore makes no difference whether the machinery, efe., be in fact personalty or not, as the statute treats the entire establishment, with all its equipments, as realty, relatively to the lien allowed by Code, § 1979. It is the manifest purpose of the statute that these liens shall cover not only the land upon which the mills, factories, etc., are situated, but also the structures themselves, and all the appliances necessary to their existence and complete running order as such establishments.”
The petition for revision is denied.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.