In re Potee Brick Co.

Citations

• 179 F. 525
• 1910 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 282

Syllabus

<p>1. Fixtures (§ 27*) — Landlord and Tenant — Lease.</p> <p>Where a lease provided that the improvements which it was contemplated the tenant would erect on the premises should not be removed therefrom until the rent was paid, such provisions precluded the tenant’s right to remove articles annexed to the freehold which would otherwise be removable as trade fixtures.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Fixtures, Cent. Dig. § 22; Dec. Dig. § 27.*]</p> <p>2. Bankruptcy (§ 140*) — Erections on Real Estate — Removal—Mortgagee.</p> <p>WEere a lease of real property to the bankrupt contemplated that the bankrupt would erect on the premises certain improvements which should not be removed until the rent was paid, there was no right in the bankrupt, his trustee or mortgagee, to remove any of the property annexed to the freehold unless and until all the rent in arrears had been paid, whether such property so annexed constituted trade fixtures or not.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Bankruptcy, Cent Dig. §§ 199, 218; Dec. Dig. § 140.*]</p> <p>3. Landlord and Tenant (§ 157*) — Improvements by Tenant — Removal.</p> <p>Where a bankrupt held over with the consent of the landlord and remained in possession under a lease providing that improvements which the tenant erected on the premises should not he removed until the rent was paid, and receivers were appointed at the instance of the landlord, who continued possession awaiting the election of a trustee in bankruptcy, the termination of the lease by forfeiture or expiration of the term did not necessarily terminate the bankrupt’s right to remove fixtures after payment of the rent in arrear.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Landlord and Tenant, Cent. Dig. §§ 577, 578; Dec. Dig. § 157.*]</p> <p>4. Landlord and Tenant (§ 248*) — Security fob Rents — Chattels—Rights of Creditors.</p> <p>An agreement that chattels on the premises shall be at the disposal of the landlord as security for rent is not valid as against