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

304 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
of the thing demised. " The question," said Parke, Baron,
" is whether the machine, when fixed, is parcel of the free-
hold, and this is a question of fact depending on the circum-
stances of each case, and principally on two considerations,
first, the mode of annexation to the soil or fabric of the house,
and the extent to which it is united to them; whether it can
easily be removed, integre, salve, et commode, or not, without
injury to itself or the fabric of the building; secondly, on the
object and purpose of the annexation, whether it was for the
permanent and substantial improvement of the dwelling, in the
language of the civil law, perpetui usus causa, or merely for a
temporary purpose, or the more complete enjoyment and use
of it as a chattel;" and the conclusion was that the machines
had not become a part of the freehold; that they had not lost
the character of movable chattels, and wore liable to be dis-
trained.
The law in relation to fixtures does not seem to have en-
gaged the attention of the Courts in this state frequently.
The only reported cases are those of Kirwan vs. Latour, 1
H. ^ J., 289, and Coombs and Jordan, 3 Bland, 284. The
latter does not seem to have decided any question bearing
upon the present controversy; but the former, which was re-
garded by t,he General Court us a case between vendor and
vendee, is an authority, to some extent at least, in favor of the
Savage Manufacturing Company.
Assuming, therefore, the rule to be that as between mort-
gagor and mortgagee, the question is whether the thing claimed
to be a fixture is so attached as to become parcel of the free-
hold, which is a question of fact depending on the mode of
annexation to the soil or fabric of the house, and the extent to
which it is united to them; that is, whether it can be removed
or not without injury to itself or the fabric of the building, I
am of opinion, upon the evidence in this case, that the machi-
nery furnished by the Savage Manufacturing Company has
not become a part of the freehold; that it has not lost the
character of movable chattels, and consequently is not covered
by, or within, the operation of the mortgages to the Bank and

  		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 204   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