Summary

Edward Douglass White Valdes v. Altagracia — Opinion of the Court

Hence the objects which are dedicated to the use of a piece of land or a building by a lessee cannot be considered as having become immovable by destination except in the case where they have been applied for account of the proprietor, or in execution of an obligation imposed by the lease.' It follows that the machinery placed by the corporation in the plant, by the fact of its being so placed, lost its character as a movable, and became united with and a part of the plant as an immovable by destination.
Source: Wikisource

Edward Douglass White Valdes v. Altagracia — Opinion of the Court

To make the order efficacious it was declared that nothing would be done in the suit of the heirs of Sanchez against Castello and the Altagracia, which was pending on appeal, and that a demurrer filed to the suit of Castello against the central would be overruled; that the demurrer in the suit at law of Valdes would remain in abeyance to await the final action of the court on the trial of all the issues in the equity causes, and that a stay of the Nevers & Callaghan execution would be also disposed of when the equity cases came to be decided.
Source: Wikisource

Edward Douglass White Valdes v. Altagracia — Opinion of the Court

The contract transferring the lease to the Central Altagracia, Incorporated, was made in July, 1905, at the end, therefore, of the grinding season of that year. To what extent the corporation contracted for cane to be delivered to it for grinding during the season of 1905-06, which began in December, 1905, does not appear. It is inferable, however, that the corporation began the work of installing new machinery to give the plant a larger capacity within the year stipulated in the lease from Sanchez to Castello.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature