Wright v. Michelman
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
1Opinion of the CourtBraley, J.
It is “ well estabhshed by the cases, that things which the tenant has at his own expense affixed to the freehold for purposes of ornament or domestic convenience, or for purposes of trade, business or manufactures, may be removed by him before the expiration of his term.” But the “ right of removal depends upon the mode in which the thing to be removed is annexed to the freehold, and the effect which its removal would have upon the premises.” Hanrahan v. O’Reilly, 102 Mass. 201, 203. Collamore v. Gillis, 149 Mass. 578, 581.
The bowling alleys in question, which were first installed by a…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Watriss v. First National Bank of CambridgeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878
- Guthrie v. JonesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
- Holbrook v. ChamberlinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
- James Millar Co. v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1925
- Noyes v. GagnonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- City of East Orange v. Board of Water CommissionersSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1963
- Looney v. Trimount Theatres, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933
- Wurdemann v. HjelmSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
- Southern Massachusetts Broadcasters, Inc. v. DuchaineMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1988
- Ucci v. ManciniSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1975
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.