In re Highland Silk Co.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
KIRKPATRICK, District Judge.
In this ease, the referee apparently was of the opinion that, if the machinery, which, is the subject of the controversy, was indispensable in carrying on the business of the particular factory in which it was located, it necessarily became a part of the realty. While some of the eases in dealing with the question of machines as fixtures use rather broad language, a careful review of all the Pennsylvania decisions upon the subject makes it clear that the primary and controlling consideration with regard to machinery in manufacturing plants is the same as in the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Vail v. WeaverSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
- Bullock Electric Manufacturing Co. v. Lehigh Valley Traction Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Glasgow v. HillSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
3Cited by8 opinions
- Union Bldg. Co. of Pennsylvania v. PennellCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1935
- Farrier v. Old Republic Insurance (In Re Farrier)United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1986
- Ideal Building & Loan Ass'n v. BatemanCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1936
- Kennedy v. CrumlishCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1936
- Cope v. SeltzerCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1930
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.