Merritt & Bourne v. Judd & Byrne
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Fourteenth District. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. The Court below, on motion for nonsuit, and during the trial, made rulings upon the doctrine of fixtures, the opposite of the results reached by this Court, and it is not necessary to repeat them. The jury, under instructions, found for plaintiff. Defendants appeal.
1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, J.
Replevin for a small steam engine and pump.
This case has been argued with a research and ability highly creditable to the counsel, the more especially as their labors and arguments are of a value somewhat disproportioned to that of the matter of litigation which has elicited them. The facts, as stated by Respondents, are as follows: R. S. Whigham, the plaintiffs’ predecessor in interest, leased a quartz ledge of the defendant, Byrne. During the lease, Whigham placed the engine and pump upon the ledge, where it was used to pump water from the shaft, and to raise the quartz rock to the surface.…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Norris v. DoniphanCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1863
- Short & Co. v. Trabue & Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1863
- Voorhis v. FreemanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
- Walker v. ShermanNew York Supreme Court · 1839
- Holmes v. TremperNew York Supreme Court · 1822
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by38 opinions
- Stanislaus Water Co. v. BachmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- Potter v. . CromwellNew York Court of Appeals · 1869
- Kerr v. KingsburyMichigan Supreme Court · 1878
- Watriss v. First National Bank of CambridgeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878
- Carlin v. RitterCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1888
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.