clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search		 search for:
clear space
white space
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 196   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

196 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
The machinery, the proceeds of the sale of which give rise
to the present controversy, consists in part of the steam-engine
and boilers, constituting the motive power of the factory, and
the machinery by which the cotton was manufactured, and
which is described in the mortgage given to the Savage Manu-
facturing Company.
So far as that portion of the machinery is concerned which
supplied the motive power and which was affixed to and placed
in the building, in the manner described by the witnesses, it
seems upon authority to be too clear for dispute, that it must
be regarded as a part of the freehold, and as falling within
the operation of the mortgages to the Bank and Wilson.
The counsel for the Messrs. Denmead pressed upon the
Court the circumstance that this machinery was placed in the
building after the execution of the mortgages, but so far as I
am informed by the authorities this makes no difference. Wins-
low vs. The Merchants' Ins. Co., 4 Metcalf, 306, is a direct
decision upon the point, and I have been furnished with no
case to the contrary, though numerous cases establishing the
same principle have been produced and could be cited if neces-
sary.
The authorities which prove that machinery of this descrip-
tion, affixed to a building for manufacturing purposes, becomes
a part of the freehold, and as between mortgagor and mort-
gagee 'belongs to the latter as part of his security, are numerous
and conclusive. The case cited ia a strong one upon the ques-
tion, and there are none so far as I am aware at variance with
it, and it is fully supported by the cases of Powell vs. The
Mouson and Brimfield Manf. Co., 3 Mason, 459; Farrar, vs.
Stackpole, 6 Greenlf; 154, and Voorhis vs. .Freeman, 2 Watts
and Serg., 116.
It has been contended, however, that as by the terms of the
mortgage to the Bank the machinery in the mill or factory
then in existence passed, and as the Powhatan factory and the
machinery in it was subsequently erected and put up, the
latter ought not to be included in the, mortgage, as not
being within the contemplation of the parties at the time of its
execution. The argument is, that the parties by their con-

  		clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 196   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.

Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!

An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  August 16, 2024
Maryland State Archives