The penny press. [volume] (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1859-1860, 1859-10-18
LAW REPORT.
SUPERIOR COURT.


? CASES DECIDED IN RooM No. I.-W. B.
Moore vs.. J. McGrew and wife. A proceeding to
1oreclose a mortgage against husband and wife. A
demurrer was filed on the part of both defendants
wife being party theretoand in disposing Of the
case Judge Spencer held that as to her there was no
Just cause OF action set forth, and the demurrer
would be sustained.
The other defendant, however, demurs on the
ground that she is Improperly made party, and for
that reason that there Is defect Of parties defend
ant The fact of the petition setting up cause Of
action IS to one Of the defendants which does not
murrer as to j. MEG. is therefore overruied.
PETITION FOR RE-APPRAIsEMENr.-Randv vs.. -.
A petition Tor re-appiaisement was tiled on the
ground that the property, five lots in the northern
part of the city, was twice offered for SALE and re-
mains unsold for want Of bidders Motion oyerruled
or granted on terms ofpettioner praying costs ofap
FIXTURES UPON REAL EsrATia.-Morton VS.. Ben
| son.-Submitted to Judge Spencer upon the testi-
mony In the year 1883 the plaintiff disposed OF u.
lot IF ground in this city wbich two saw mills had
been erected-one which had boilers and oiher ma
chinery, was burned-the other was unoccupied and
had not enough machinery to run the mill. Morton
took mortgage on the, pvrchase money, in which
and bounds. The purchaser, Benson, sold out 20 a
party named Dudley, who after he obtained posses
sion in 1881, put into the building boilers, aS, and
nxed up the mill with view to running, Shortly
aiterward d. executed y chattel mortgage on the
ana sa SG which was and
be treated as fixtures, and pass under the original
mortgage, executed in favor of Mortimer, ON the
Whether the boiler and machinery became fixtures
or not would depend entirely on the question OF
intent, on the original design of the party in putting
them on the premises AS general rule, machinery
of all kiuds, capable Of being removed and formin
necessary part of tho building, would be supposed
to be put in not for the benefit Of the Of the
fee, unless 1t vas apparent from equity in the
case that such was put In permanently. The pre-
sumption OF law, in favor of trade 10 that machinery
susceptible of being removed easily is put in for
temporary purpose, or for the benefit of the tenant
SO far as there was any testimony in this case it
showed that the machinery was capable of being q.
moved. The Court, therefore, held that the boilers
and engine were not to be regarded part Of the
freehold, but might be removed as chatels-and tina
the chattel mortgage ought to prevail over the org
nal mortgage given for the purchase money. MessIi.
Ais and Douglas represe nled the parties seyerallj
Holbert vs.. Holcraft and others. This was mo
tion for the sale of the steamboat Diamond, which
to be in the hands OF the Sheriff. - --'7,1,
The plaintiff asks that the boat be sold as perish
able property, the ground that the keeping OF her
this source will largely diminish the fund. Itis also
alleged that the steamer was attached in July, 1852
and that mum Der OF suits have been commenced 10
this Court against her, Oh which attachments issued
| to the amount of 5000.
pearance had not yet elapsed, and Court called
on to see the property prior to any judgment rem
deed IN the acton oy virtue M Oh that provision OF ths
respecting the preservation of property attached
where shall be found to be Of perishable nature
II was stated in an affidavit made on tho part Of
certain creditors that she in fact in the custody Of
the Marshal of the United States, by virtue of III
bell and II sold it claimed the sale would be dis
astrous, inasmuch as No competition could be had,
| from the fact Of the conflicting titles.
The Court remarked that the defendant might
have been In Coprta month ago by publication, aud
the plaintiff had therefore no particular rights on
the score Of diligence steamboat not property
30 perishable SO as TO require immediate action; and
as cloud might rest on the title of the sheriff lit
the United States in Admif atty, and an immediate
sale rather in the sacrice than protection
of the property the motion for the sale would be re-.
fused, aud the parties left to the urua remedy.
D0dd Huston for the motion; Lincoln, smith d
Warnock ON the other side. =
Shippen VS.. The Central Insurance Company. De-
murrer sustained on the ground that the contract
was not Incorporated in the petition.
In Room No. Judge HOadly lheard "a submitted
case. No. lOH on docket is set for this day.