Tudor Iron Works v. Hitt
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Audrain Circuit Court. — Hon. E. M. Hughes, Judge. (1) The only question in the case is whether the railroad ties, under the circumstances, are personal property or real estate. If personal property, then plaintiff was entitled to a verdict for possession, and the court erred in refusing the instructions asked by it, and, if real estate, the case should have been dismissed.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Audrain Circuit Court. — Hon. E. M. Hughes, Judge. (1) The only question in the case is whether the railroad ties, under the circumstances, are personal property or real estate. If personal property, then plaintiff was entitled to a verdict for possession, and the court erred in refusing the instructions asked by it, and, if real estate, the case should have been dismissed. The defendant consented to the placing of the track upon his land, and as between him and the railroad company, or one claiming under it, it remained personal property. “ A building or other fixtures, which…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, P. J.
The plaintiff, a business and manufacturing corporation, brought its action of replevin against defendant to recover a certain number of cross ties and iron rails. It appears from the evidence that the defendant gave one G-arland, who was president of the Mexico Street Railroad Company, a sixty-day option to purchase a certain tract of land. Before the expiration of this option the Mexico Railroad Company applied to defendant for permission to put its railroad down over the . land it embraced. Defendant refused to permit it to be done, unless the railroad company would agree to buy the land.…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Hines v. AmentSupreme Court of Missouri · 1869
- Lowenberg v. BerndSupreme Court of Missouri · 1871
- Hinkley & Egery Iron Co. v. BlackSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1880
- Korbe v. BarbourMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1881
- Lapham v. NortonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1880
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. BradburyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1904
- Harris v. HittMissouri Court of Appeals · 1894
- Hatton v. Kansas City, Clinton & Springfield Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1913