Vail v. Weaver

Decided February 17, 1890

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1890-02-17

No. 101 January Term 1890, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 35 March Term 1887, C. P. On January 4, 1887, Carl M. Vail brought replevin against John Mundell and H. P. Weaver, for an engine, dynamo and appliances, constituting an electric light plant. Defendant Mundell pleaded non detinet and H. P. Weaver pleaded property.

Relies on Hill v. Sewald · Morris's Appeal · Seeger v. Pettit

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1890-02-17

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently June 1986 · most notably Commonwealth Tr. Co. of Pbg. v. Harkins (1933), Kinnear v. Scenic Railways Co. (1909)

5 federal appellate · 3 district · 16 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam:

¶1The principal question in this case was, whether the machinery and fixtures of the electric plant, which were placed in the tack-works, were placed there permanently or not. If they were temporary fixtures, placed there for a temporary purpose, their sale under the writ of fieri facias passed a good title. Mere physical annexation is no longer the rule. It is a question of intention. The intention to annex, whether rightfully or wrongfully, is the legal criterion: Hill v. Sewald, 53 Pa. 271; Seeger v. Pettit, 77 Pa. 437; Morris’s App., 88 Pa. 368. This question was submitted to the jury by the learned court below under adequate instructions, and their verdict ends the case.

¶2Judgment affirmed.