Case Name: The President, Directors, and Company, of the Union Bank versus James Emerson
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1818-05
Citations: 14 Tyng 159
Docket Number: 
Parties: The President, Directors, and Company, of the Union Bank versus James Emerson.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 15
Pages: 147–147

Head Matter:
The President, Directors, and Company, of the Union Bank versus James Emerson.
A kettle in a fulling-mill, used for dyeing cloth, being set in brick-work, passed to the mortgagee of the mill.
Trover for a copper kettle. One Kellogg, in the year 1800, being seised in fee of a parcel of land in Bridgton, on which was a fulling-mill, mortgaged the same, without mentioning the appurtenances, to the plaintiffs in fee; and in 1815 the plaintiffs, by their agent, entered upon the mortgaged premises, in presence of two witnesses, of whom the defendant was one. The kettle in question was fixed in brick-work in the mill at the time of executing the mortgage, and was then, and for a long time after, used as a dye-kettle for dyeing cloth. When the plaintiffs took possession under their mortgage, the mill was in a dilapidated state, not having been used for some years previous; and the brick-work, in which the kettle was set, had in part fallen down. Soon afterwards Kellogg took the kettle out of the mill, and sold it to the defendant, he knowing it to be the same.
Greenleaf for the plaintiffs.
Emery for the defendant.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This kettle was a part of the íealty, and passed to the plaintiffs by Kellogg's mortgage. It could not be removed without actual injury to the mill. It is true * that, by late decisions, tenants have been favored in questions of this kind, and the strictness of the ancient law has been much relaxed. And in the case before us, had the defendant, after making the mortgage deed, put this kettle into the mill, we should have considered him authorized to remove it before delivering possession to the plaintiffs. This fixture was essential to the use of the mill. It was attached to it at the time of executing the mortgage, and it remained there when the plaintiffs took possession. They had a right to retain it; and the defendant must answer to them for the value of it.
Defendant defaulted
Vide 3 Powell on Mortg. by Coventry, 1041, d. note, Am. ed