Walker v. Sherman
New York Supreme Court
C. P. Kirkland, for the defendant, moved to set aside the report of commissioners in partition, on the ground that they had improperly made partition between the parties, who were tenants in common, in equal moieties, of a woollen factory, a house, barn, and twenty acres of land. He read affidavits tending to show that the premises were so circumstanced, as not to admit of a just and equal partition, and that they should therefore have been sold.
Read the full summary
C. P. Kirkland, for the defendant, moved to set aside the report of commissioners in partition, on the ground that they had improperly made partition between the parties, who were tenants in common, in equal moieties, of a woollen factory, a house, barn, and twenty acres of land. He read affidavits tending to show that the premises were so circumstanced, as not to admit of a just and equal partition, and that they should therefore have been sold. But, if otherwise, that the commissioners in making partition had mistook the character of several articles of machinery belonging to the mill,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Co wen, J.
Judging from the affidavits before us, the machinery which the commissioners excluded as being personal property, was such - only as was moveable, and in no way physically attached to the factory or land, though it had been used for several years, as belonging to the factory, and was as material to its performance in certain departments of its work, as the machinery which was actually affixed. Did the commissioners err in disregarding the moveable machines 1 That is the only question. If they were right, the equality and justice of the partition are apparent upon the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Gale v. WardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1817
- President, Directors, & Co. v. EmersonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1818
- Oves v. OgelsbySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1838
- Goddard v. ChaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1811
- Powell v. Monson & Brimfield Manuf'g Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1824
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by78 opinions
- McRea v. Central National Bank of TroyNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
- Voorhis v. FreemanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
- Potter v. . CromwellNew York Court of Appeals · 1869
- Central Lithograph Co. v. Eatmor Chocolate Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
- Merritt & Bourne v. Judd & ByrneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
73 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.