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 203   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

McKIM AND KENNEDY VS. MASON. 208
not only took the house during the term, and everything that
was affixed to the freehold, but likewise the tenant's right to
remove the fixtures at the end of the term. The case through-
out assumes an uncontroverted position, that the articles in
question were parcel of the freehold during the term, the tenant,
however, having the right, during its continuance or at its end,
to remove them, and by the assignment to the mortgagee, the
tenant's interest in the realty, and everything affixed thereto,
together with the right of removal, passed. This is the opinion
of Parker, B., and Alderson, B., the latter saying, " this ques-
tion turns on the nature of the property; it is clear that
nothing of a freehold nature is within the meaning of the
clause in the bankrupt act as to order and disposition."
In the case of Hallen vs. Bunder, the property in dispute
likewise consisted of fixtures put up by a tenant, and nothing
more is decided than that upon an agreement between landlord
and tenant, that the latter would not remove them at the expi-
ration of his tenancy, " the former agreeing to take them at a
valuation; the tenant, though he could not recover the price as
for goods gold and delivered, might recover as for fixtures bar-
gained and sold."
But the case which seems most strongly to support the
judgment of the Court in Trappes vs. Barter, and to prove
that the conclusion arrived at in that case, whatever may be
said of a portion of the argument of the Chancellor, has not
been weakened by the subsequent cases, is the case of Holla-
well vs. Eastwood, S Eng. Rep. in Law & Equity, 562. The
question in this last case was, whether cotton-spinning machines
which were fixed by means of screws, some into the wooden
floor, and some into lead which had been poured in a melted
state into holes in the stone for the purpose of receiving the
screws, were by law distrainable for the rent of the mill, in
which they were fixed, and this depended entirely upon whether
they were part of the freehold or not. If they were, they
could not be distrained, for what is a part of the freehold can-
not be severed from it without detriment to the thing itself in
the removal, and besides, what is fixed to the freehold is part

  		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 203   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  November 18, 2025
Maryland State Archives