Buckley v. Buckley
New York Supreme Court
In Equity. The hill in this cause was filed in December, 1847, and prayed that the copartnership of Wm. Mowry & Co. might be declared dissolved; an account taken of the assets thereof; the respective rights of the parties to the suit be ascertained and settled; and that the property might be divided or sold, the proper persons joining in the conveyance, and the proceeds divided according to their respective interests. In 1806, Wm. Mowry and Wm.
Read the full summary
In Equity. The hill in this cause was filed in December, 1847, and prayed that the copartnership of Wm. Mowry & Co. might be declared dissolved; an account taken of the assets thereof; the respective rights of the parties to the suit be ascertained and settled; and that the property might be divided or sold, the proper persons joining in the conveyance, and the proceeds divided according to their respective interests. In 1806, Wm. Mowry and Wm. Casey owned three-fourths of a cotton factory and other buildings in Greenwich, Washington county, U. Y. on the Battenkill. In 1807 they purchased of…
1Opinion of the CourtHand, J.
Several important questions have been argued in this case. It is contended on the part of the plaintiff that most of this property, from its very nature, is personalty, and that were it otherwise, it must all he so considered, in equity, because there is an equitable conversion.
What shall be considered fixtures and as such pass with the realty, is often a vexed question, and is not always easy of determination. Different rules prevail under different circumstances, depending upon the relation of the parties and the nature and nse of the property. One rule obtains betweén heir and executor,…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Van Ness v. PacardSupreme Court of the United States · 1829
- Walker v. ShermanNew York Supreme Court · 1839
- Buchan v. SumnerNew York Court of Chancery · 1847
- People ex rel. Doughty v. Judges of Dutchess C. P.New York Supreme Court · 1839
- Rogers v. RogersNew York Court of Chancery · 1828
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- In Re: Linerboard Antitrust Litigation Winoff Industries, Inc. v. Stone Container Corporation Jefferson Smurfit Corp. Smurfit-Stone Container Corp. International Paper Co. Georgia Pacific Corp. Weyerhaeuser Paper Co. Temple-Inland Inc. Gaylord Container Corp. Union Camp Corp. Simpson Tacoma Kraft Co. Tenneco, Inc. Tenneco Packaging Packaging Corporation of America General Refractories Company, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Stone Container Corporation Stone Container Corporation, Jefferson Smurfit Corp., Smurfit-Stone Container Corp., International Paper Co., Georgia Pacific Corp., Weyerhaeuser Paper Co., Temple-Inland, Inc., Gaylord Container Corp., Union Camp Corp., Tenneco, Inc., Tenneco Packaging and Packaging Corporation of America, ( Amended Per Clerk's Order Dated 2/5/02)Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2002
- Potter v. . CromwellNew York Court of Appeals · 1869
- Jackson v. DanbergCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2011
- Duryea v. BurtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
- Armor v. FreySupreme Court of Missouri · 1913
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.