Smith v. Whitney
| Decision Date | 19 October 1888 |
| Citation | 18 N.E. 229,147 Mass. 479 |
| Parties | SMITH v. WHITNEY. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
F.P. Goulding, for plaintiff.
W.S.B. Hopkins and W.T. Forbes, for defendant.
We are of opinion that the engine-house was not an addition to the lumber-house, but a building which the defendant had a right, under the lease, to remove. The lumber-house was a wooden building, and extensive alterations and additions were made to it, and it was fitted with machinery for a box factory. The building in question was erected near to it, and was not in its construction or in its use a part of it. It was built of brick, complete in itself, and was not connected with the other building. Its only use was as a house for the engine which furnished power to the factory, and which was connected with the machinery in the factory by belts and shafting. The engine and machinery were trade fixtures, which could be removed by the defendant. The fact that the engine was so connected with the machinery in the factory did not make the engine-house a part of the factory building. On the contrary, the purpose of its erection, for the protection of a fixture which could be removed as personal property of the defendant, as well as the manner of its construction, shows that it was not an addition to the lumber-house, but a building which the defendant could remove before or after he should remove the engine. Exceptions overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chapman v. Katz
...in this lease. The terms "structure" and "trade fixture" have not historically been mutually exclusive. See, e.g., Smith v. Whitney, 147 Mass. 479, 481, 18 N.E. 229 (1888) ("engine-house was not an addition to the lumber-house, but a building which the defendant had a right, under the lease......
-
Moffat v. White, 31576.
...Block, 147 Ga. 639, 95 S.E. 228, 229; Ray v. Young, 160 Iowa 613, 142 N.W. 393, 46 L.R.A.,N.S., 947, Ann.Cas. 1915D, 258; Smith v. Whitney, 147 Mass. 479, 18 N.E. 229; Snow v. Smith, 86 Vt. 83 A. 269; Van Ness v. Pacard, 2 Pet. 137, 7 L.Ed. 374. In the last-cited case the applicable syllabu......
-
Cornell-andrews Smelting Co. v. Boston & P.R. Corp.
...its own expense, they are trade fixtures which the lessee has a right to remove during the continuance of the lease. See Smith v. Whitney, 147 Mass. 479, 18 N.E. 229; Antoni v. Belknap, 102 Mass. 193; Watriss National Bank of Cambridge, 124 Mass. 571, 575, 26 Am. Rep. 694. In such a case, b......
-
Moffat v. White
...v. Block, 147 Ga. 639, 95 S.E. 228, 229; Ray v. Young, 160 Iowa 613, 142 N.W. 393, 46 L.R.A.(N.S.) 947, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 258; Smith v. Whitney, 147 Mass. 479, 18 N.W. Snow v. Smith, 86 Vt. 58, 83 A. 269; Van Ness v. Pacard, 2 Pet. (U.S.) 137, 7 L.Ed. 374. In the last cited case the applicab......