Vail v. Weaver, 19 A. 138 (Pa. 1890).
Vail v. Weaver, 19 A. 138 (Pa. 1890). Book View Copy Cite
Positive Treatment Affirmed 1 positive
CARL M. VAIL
v.
H. P. WEAVER
No. 101.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Feb 17, 1890.
19 A. 138
Mr. Montgomery Evans (with him Mr. Louis M. Childs), for the appellant., Mr. Henry C. Boyer (with him Mr. Samuel B. Huey), for the appellee.
Clark, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Paxson, Sterrett, Williams.
Cited by 26 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam:

The principal question in this case was, whether the machinery and fixtures of the electric plant, which were placed in the tack-works, were placed there permanently or not. If they were temporary fixtures, placed there for a temporary purpose, their sale under the writ of fieri facias passed a good title. Mere physical annexation is no longer the rule. It is a question of intention. The intention to annex, whether rightfully or wrongfully, is the legal criterion: Hill v. Sewald, 53 Pa. 271; Seeger v. Pettit, 77 Pa. 437; Morris’s App., 88 Pa. 368. This question was submitted to the jury by the learned court below under adequate instructions, and their verdict ends the case.

Judgment affirmed.