Free v. Stuart & Schmensky
Nebraska Supreme Court
Appeal from the district court of Douglas county. Heard below before Hopewell, J. The facts are stated in the opinion. The property in dispute constitutes a “fixture” in thé proper legal sense of that term.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the district court of Douglas county. Heard below before Hopewell, J. The facts are stated in the opinion. The property in dispute constitutes a “fixture” in thé proper legal sense of that term. The tenant has never possessed the right to remove it, nor the power to delegate that right. {Teaff v. Hewitt, 1 O. St., 511; Freeman v. Lynch, 8 Neb., 199; Hutchins v. Masterson, 46 Tex., 551; Ehoes v. Maio, 3 East [Eng.], 38; BucMand v. Butter-field, 2 Brod. & Bing. [Eng.], 54; Fhilipson v. Mullanphy, 1 Mo., 620; Long v. Kee, 8 So. Rep. [La.], 610; Merritt v. Judd, 14 Cal., 60; Roseville…
1Opinion of the CourtNor val, C. J.
This action was brought in the court below by appellee M. E. Free to foreclose a chattel mortgage given by the defendants Stuart & Schmensky on two greenhouses erected by them on leased real estate owned by appellants George W. Sautter and Frank Sautter. The cause was *223tried by the district court upon a written agreed statement of facts, signed by the attorneys of the respective parties, of which the following is a copy:
“1. In the spring of 1888 the said George W. and Frank Sautter were the owners in fee of a certain dwelling house, with outbuildings and about ten acres of land surrounding, in…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Friedlander v. RyderNebraska Supreme Court · 1890
- Smith v. ParkSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
3Cited by11 opinions
- Frost v. SchinkelNebraska Supreme Court · 1931
- Berg v. ScullySupreme Court of Kansas · 1926
- Couch v. Scandinavian-American BankOregon Supreme Court · 1921
- Bush v. HavirdIdaho Supreme Court · 1906
- Hughes v. KershowSupreme Court of Colorado · 1908
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.