Samuel Olson & Co. v. Voorhees
| Decision Date | 01 September 1923 |
| Docket Number | 2952-2954. |
| Citation | 292 F. 113 |
| Parties | SAMUEL OLSON & CO. v. VOORHEES et al. WILMOT ENGINEERING CO., Inc., v. SAME. H. H. ROBERTSON CO. v. SAME. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Charles E. Hendrickson, of Jersey City, N.J., for appellants.
Conover English, of Newark, N.J., for appellees.
Before BUFFINGTON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and McKEEHAN, District judge.
All three of the above causes were heard together. Substantially the same question of law is involved in each case, and that question will be disposed of in one opinion. Each of the companies sold and furnished materials to the Willys Corporation on a conditional bill of sale wherein they reserved in themselves title and right to possession of the materials until paid for in cash.
The amount due the Olson Company is $2,100 for materials furnished for a 'subveyor and all other machinery material therefor. ' This 'subveyor' was a series of elevators for carrying automobile batteries from the first to the second floor of the building, a distance of 13 feet. The carrying flights were spaced 3 feet apart, and the speed of the elevators was 18 feet a minute, so that batteries could be delivered about every 10 seconds. At the lower floor there was provided a 10-foot section of gravity rollers, each roller supported on a through shaft resting on an angle iron framework. A device was provided for automatically feeding the batteries into the 'subveyor.' The machines were of a special type built to carry storage batteries weighing 60 pounds maximum. The framework was steel throughout, and was built in a rigid and substantial manner, and was provided with a worm gear drive connected to a motor.
The Wilmot Company furnished materials or component parts of the chassis and drive of a car assembly conveyor. The conveyor was designed to carry automobiles from one part of the plant to another, and operated on an endless chain, which enabled it, during the process of construction, to take on the chassis of an automobile and convey it from place to place in the plant, where definite work on it was done, until it was completed. The price for the material was $12,959, on which the Willys Corporation was entitled to a credit of $2,538.20.
The Robertson Company furnished material and labor to erect part of the roof and sides of the factory building. The price of the material and labor was $6,079.92, which was reduced by payment to $3,037.05, with certain interest.
The plant of the Willys Corporation, including the materials furnished by the petitioners, was sold in insolvency proceedings free and clear from all incumbrances and liens which were to be transferred to and imposed upon the proceeds arising from the sale. The petitioners contend that the title to, and right of possession of, the materials furnished under the conditional sales agreements was in them, and they are entitled to the payment of their claims in full before the distribution of the proceeds of the sale to general creditors.
The learned District Judge found that the materials had become so affixed to, and a part of, the realty, that they were not severable wholly or in any portion from it without material injury to the freehold. He therefore held that the reservation of title was void against the receivers who represent creditors.
The conditional sales agreements were not filed until after the appointment of the receivers. There is no contention that any of the creditors ever assented to the reservation. The sole question is whether or not the materials were so affixed to the realty as to become a part of it, and not severable wholly or in any portion from it without material injury to the freehold.
This case was determined on petition and answer. It is nowhere alleged in any of the petitions that the materials had not become a part of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Munsey Trust Co of Washington
...but since its efforts were directed to be for the benefit of Aetna, it might assert the surety's rights also. Samuel Olson & Co. v. Voorhees, 3 Cir., 292 F. 113, 115. If the right of the United States to make the set-off were opposed only by the claims of the contractor, this case would pre......
-
United States v. 94 DOZEN, ETC., HALF-GALLON BOTTLES
...C. A.) 292 F. 1, 4; Coldwell v. United States (C. C. A.) 256 F. 805; Clarke v. United States (C. C. A.) 255 F. 546. Samuel Olson & Co. v. Voorhees (C. C. A.) 292 F. 113, 115. It is true that in the second conclusion of law, which the government says is predicated upon the third finding of f......
-
Braun v. American Laundry Mach. Co.
...1915); American & British Securities Co. v. American & British Mfg. Corp., 275 F. 121 (D. C., S. D. N. Y. 1921); Olson & Co. v. Voorhees, 292 F. 113 (C. C. A. 2d, 1923); Cornelius v. C. C. Pictures, Inc., 297 F. 444 (C. C. A. 2d, 1924), and Attorney General v. Guardian Mutual Life Ins. Co.,......
-
Continental Bank & Trust Co. v. Webster Hall Corp.
...of the Pennsylvania act, actually entering into that conditional sales agreement and recording it, as required by law. In Olson & Co. v. Voorhees, 292 F. 113, our Circuit Court again said that the receivers appointed for the purpose of winding up the affairs of a corporation and distributin......