Pyle v. Pennock
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the Common Pleas of Chester county. This was an amicable action on the case by Joel Pennock, to the use of P. Frazer Smith, his trustee for the benefit of his creditors, against Joseph Pyle, in which it was agreed that the following facts should be submitted to the court below in the nature of a special verdict.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the Common Pleas of Chester county. This was an amicable action on the case by Joel Pennock, to the use of P. Frazer Smith, his trustee for the benefit of his creditors, against Joseph Pyle, in which it was agreed that the following facts should be submitted to the court below in the nature of a special verdict. P. Frazer Smith is trustee of Joel Pennock, under an assignment of all his personal property for the benefit of his creditors, made September 16,1839. Subsequent to the assignment, Joseph Pyle purchased at sheriff’s sale certain real estate of the said Joel, being “Laurel…
1Per curiam
The principle of this case is settled by Voorhis v. Freeman, (ante 116). As regards the rolls, it is that case in *392terms; and as regards the iron plates, it is stronger still. These constituted the floor of the mill, and were, according to the case stated, an indispensable part of it. It surely would not be thought that a brick floor is not a part of the building, or that the bricks would not pass by a conveyance of it: and the nature of the material of which the floor consists, cannot make a difference as to the character of the thing. Of what importance can it be whether the plates were made…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Commonwealth Tr. Co. of Pbg. v. HarkinsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
- Titus v. Poland Coal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
- Hill v. SewaldSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1867
- United Laundries, Inc. v. Board of Property AssessmentSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
- Mortgage Bond Co. v. StephensSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1937
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.