Sampson v. Graham
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to * the Court of Common Pleas of Washington county: Of October and November Term 1880, No. 300. Feigned issue, wherein E. T. Graham was plaintiff and James Sampson, in trust for the Peoples’ Savings Bank, was defendant, to try the title to a stove pattern 'seized by the sheriff as the property of A. Y. Graham.
Read the full summary
Error to * the Court of Common Pleas of Washington county: Of October and November Term 1880, No. 300. Feigned issue, wherein E. T. Graham was plaintiff and James Sampson, in trust for the Peoples’ Savings Bank, was defendant, to try the title to a stove pattern 'seized by the sheriff as the property of A. Y. Graham. At the trial, before Hart, P. J., it appeared that in 1873, George A. Keller, who owned a foundry property and dwelling attached in Monongahela city, sold the same to A. V. Graham, who was the father of the plaintiff. A. Y. Graham carried on business in the foundry until the fall…
1Opinion of the Court
The judgment of the Supreme Court was entered November 26th 1880,
2Per curiam
It is true physical annexation to realty is not necessary to convert a chattel into a fixture. If the article, whether fast or loose, be indispensable in carrying on the specific business, it becomes a part of the realty: Morris’s Appeal, 7 Norris 368 and cases there cited. An article which would otherwise be deemed a fixture may, by severance and the understanding of the parties, become a chattel. The stove pattern in contention had for a long time been treated as a chattel. It had been taken from the foundry and removed about…
3Cited by2 opinions
- In re East Stroudsburg Glass Co.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1917
- McConnell v. Chelton Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1922