Muehling v. Muehling

Citations

• 181 Pa. 483
• 37 A. 527
• 1897 Pa. LEXIS 571

Syllabus

<p>Mortgage — Fixtures—Contract—Evidence.</p> <p>Where a mortgagor agrees with a mortgagee to place machinery to a certain amount in the mortgaged promises the machinery will be considered fixtures subject to the mortgage, notwithstanding that some of it was placed in the building after the mortgage was executed.</p> <p>It seems that without an agreement, fixtures attached to a building after the property is mortgaged, cannot be removed to the injury of the mort gagee: Roberts v. Bank, 19 Pa. 71.</p> <p>Fixtures — Mortgagor and mortgagee — Intention—Evidence.</p> <p>An agreement under which the members of a firm borrowed money to build a knitting mill and gave a mortgage, required the mortgagors to place therein the necessary machinery and to insure the same for the protection of the mortgagees. Sewing machines, hosiery knitters, and other machinery essential to the proper operation of the mill, were fastened to the floor, and run by the general steam plant. One of the mortgagors, in withdrawing from the firm, agreed to convey his interest in the real estate, machinery, etc., “ subject to the mortgage.” Eeld, that it was sufficient to warrant a finding that the parties intended to subject to the lien of the mortgage the machinery in the factory when the mortgage was executed and also the machinery subsequently placed therein by the mortgagors.</p> <p>Auditor's finding of facts — Evidence.</p> <p>The Supreme Court will not reverse an auditor’s finding of facts approved by the court below if there was sufficient warrant for it in the evidence.</p>