in ^ r It7f C.I Cornell University Law Library The Moak Collection PURCHASED FOR The School of Law of Cornell University And Presented February 14, 1893 IN HEnORY OF JUDGE DOUQLASS BOARDMAN FIH8T DEAN OF THE SCHOOL By his Wife and Daugliter A. M. BOARDMAN and ELLEN D. WILLIAMS KF 636.H64T87l"""">''"'"^^ A manual of the law of fixtures. 3 1924 018 800 882 The original of tiiis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924018800882 A. MA.:N"Ui^L .■11.00 I LAW OF FIXTURES JOHN WAED HILL, LL.B. ATTORNBT AND COtJNSBXOR AT LAW. SEOOIfD EDITION; BEVISED AND BNIiABGED. NEW YOEK: BAKER, VOORHIS & CO., LAW PUBLISHERS, 66 NASSAU STREET. 1871. Entered according to Act of CongreBS, In the year 1867, by JOHN W. HILL, In the Utdted States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1871, by BAKER, VOOBHIS & CO., In the Office of the librarian of Congress, at Washington. CONTENTS. I PAGE Chapter I. — Principle of the La\« of Fixtures, and what constitute Fixtures 13 Chaptbk II. — Of Annexations for the purposes of Trade 30 Chapter III. — Of Domestic and Ornamental Annexations 40 Chapter IV. — Of Incidents to the right of Removal 50 Chapter V.— Of the Law of Fixtures as between Heir and Execu- tor, &c., and of Emblements 60 Chapter VI.— Of Remedies at Law in respect of Fixtures 78 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED. [Numerals following names of AuthoriUes, refer to Sections.'] A. Aohey ®. HuU, 7 Mich. 79. Allison V. McOune, 15 OMo, 1, 65. AmeriscoggiQ Bridge «. Bragg, 11 N. H. 3. Austin V. Sawyer, 9 Cowen, 60. B. BaU V. Griswald, 19 HI. 50. Bank of Lansingburg v. Crary, .1 Barb. 63. Bainsay ». Cobb, 99 Mass. 8. Baitlett ». Wood, 33 Verm. 1, 14. Bevans v. Briscoe, 4 Harris & Jolms. 74 Beers v. St. Johns, 16 Conn. 46. Beck V. Eebo-w, 1 P. Wm's, 34. Beckwith «.. Bryce, 9 Miss. 34. Birch V. Dawson, 2 Ad. & Ellis, 12. Bishop B. Bishop, 1 Kern. 10. Bittinger «. Baker, 29 Penn. St. 76. Blether t>. Towle, 40 Maine, 8, 14. Brearley v. Cox, 4 Zabr. 3. Branch v. Morrison, 6 Jones' Law, 82. Briggs V. Brown, 2 Sergt. & Bawle, 75. Bryant «. Crosby, 40 Maine, 73. Bryan «. Lawrence, 5 Jones' Law, 1, 68. Bratton v. Clawson, 2 Strobh. 1, 69. Brennon «. Whitaker, et al., 15 Ohio St. 1, 14. Burk B. Baxter, 3 Mo. 1, 8. Buckley «. Buckley, 11 Barb. 61. Bumside v. Twitchell, 43 N. H. 69. Burr's Rep. 84. 6 AUTHORITIES CITED. Caldicott V. SmytMes, 7 C. & P. 76. Case of Olympic, 2 Browne, 60. Childress v. Wright, 3 Caldwell (Tenn.) 1, 3. Christian v. Dripps, 38 Penn. St. 1, 67. Climer v. Wallace, 38 Miss. 28. Cooliss V. McLagin, 39 Maine, 66. Coe, Trustee, v. Pennock & 0. Z. & C. R 61. Cook V. Champlain Trans. Co. 1 Denio, 19. Congregational Society, &c. v. Fleming, 11 Iowa, 1. Cohen v. Kyler, 37 Miss. 1, 69. Cook v. Whiting, 16 111. 1, 8. Craddock v. Riddleburger, 2 Dana, 73. Cross 0. Marston, 17 Verm. 33, 70. Crippen v. Morrison, 13 Mich. 1, 8, 6, 15, 45. Cusson V. Stout, 17 Johns. 83. Curtiss V. Hoyt, 19 Conn. 3. Dame v. Dame, 38 N. H. 3. Daniels v. Pond, 31 Pick. 63. Davis 1). Jones, 2 B. & A. 47. Dane's Abridgement Amer. Law, 9. Davis «. Moss, 38 Penn. St. 45. Deggraffeireid v. Scruggs, 4 Humph. 68. Den V. Baldwin, 1 Zabr. 3. Diffedorfer v. Jones, 5 Binney, 75. Dispatch Line i). Billamy, 13 N. H. 9, 60. Dooley v. Crist, 35 HI. 8. Dubois 1). Kelly, 10 Barb. 28, 48. E. Eden on Injunctions, 87. Elwes B. Mawe, 3 East, 33. Emerson «. Murray, 4 N. H. 49. Empson v. Sodden, 4 B. & Ad. 41. English V. Poote, 8 S. & M. 2. Esterley's Appeal, 54 Penn. St. 28. Evans ». Roberts, 5 Bam. & Cres. 50. Ex-parte Quincy, 1 Atk. 34. AUTHORITIES CITED. P, Fay V. Muzzy, 13 Gray, 33. Parrant v. Thompson, 5 B. & A. 84. Pains V. Walker, 1 Bailey, S. 0. 63. Parrar v. Stackpole, 6 Greenlf. 9, 66. Parrar v. ChaufStete 5 Denio, 1, 18. .Perrard on Pixtures, 1, 8, 43, 80. Pisher v. SaflFer, 1 E. D. Smith, 61. Fisher v. Dixon, 13 CI. & P. 60. Finney v. Watkins, 18 Miss. 18. Foley V. Addenbrook, 13 M. & W. 43. Pranklan v. Moulton, 5 Wis. 60. Frederick v. Derol, 15 Ind. 51. Pryatt v. Sullivan Co., 5 Hill, 1, 84. Pullam V. Stearns, 30 Verm. 70. Puller V. Taylor, 39 Maine, 3. G. Gardner v, Pinley, 19 Barb. 83. Gas Co. V. Thurber, 3 R. I. 36. Gaffield v. Hopgood, 17 Pick. 1, 3L George v. Fisk, 33 N. H. 79. Gibson v. Smith, 3 Atk. 86. ||b Gibbons' Manual of Law of Fixtures, 1. Goodrich v. Jones, 3 Hill, 33. Goddard v. Chase, 7 Mass. 63. Goddard v. Gould, 14 Barb. 14. Goffe «. O'Conner, 16 III. 9. Griffith II. Pulleston, 13 M.'& W. 76. GreenUef Cruise on Real Property, 73. Greenlief on Evidence, 50. Grymes v. Boweren, 6 Bing. 34. Gray v. Holdship, 17 S. & R. 15. Grand Lodge of Masons v. Knox, 37 Miss. 13. Gray «. Oyler, 3 Bush (Ky.), 3. H. Hawkins v. Skeggs, 10 Humph. 77. Hale V. Clark, 19 Wend. 83. Hancock v. Jordon, 7 Aid. 69. Harkness v. Sears, 36 Ala. 38. Harlan v. Harlan, 15 Penn. St. 18, 83. HaUen v. Runder, 1 C. M. & R. 1, 50. 8 AUTHORITIES CITED. Hensley v. Brodie, 16 Art. 83. Heermance ». Vemoy, 3 Johns. 18. Healon «. Findlay, 13 Penn. St. 1, 83. Higgins 0. Riddell, 12 Wis. 3. HiU V. Miller, 3 Paige, 49. Hilbom V. Brown, 13 Maine, 3. Hine i). Ament, 48 Mo. 3. Hill «. Wentworth, 28 Verm. 1, 6. Howell V. Bchenck, 4 Zabr. 76. Holman v. Tremper, 20 Johns. 60. Hoflick 1). Stober, 11 Ohio St. 45, 55. Horn V. Baker, 9 East, 8. Hovey v. Smith, 1 Barb. 5. Hoyle et al. v. The Plattsburg & M. R. R. Co. Bl Barb. 1, 38. Houghtailing «. Houghtailing, 5 Barb. 8. I. lyes V. Oglesby, 7 Watts, 62. K. Kain v. Pisber, 3 Seld. 63. Keogh V. Daniell, 12 Wis. 6, 45, 86i Kent'sgtemmentariea. 15, 31, 60, 73. Kerr sWonneU,, Berton, N. B> 51. King V. Wilcomb, 7 Barb. 37,. 57, L. Lampton v. Preston, 1 J. J. Marsh. 68,. Lawton v. Lawton, 3 Atk. 55. Lawrence ®. Kemp, 1 Duer, 34. Laflin «. Griffith, 35 Barb. 15. Leader s. Homerwood, 5 0. B. N. S. 45. Lee «. Risdon, 7 Taunt. 45. Leland v. Gassett, 17 Verm. 37. Lemar ■». Miles, 4 Watts, 18. Liford's Case, 11 Coke, 18. Lyde v. Russell, 1 B. & Ad. 3, 6. M. Mason v. Penn, 13 111. 13. Mansfield «. Blackburne, 6 Bing. N. 0. 18. Mather «. Prazer, 2 Kay & Johns. 1, 8, 60. AUTHOKITIBS CITED. 9 Main v. Schwarzwaelder, 4 E. D, Smith, 1, 6, 60. Merritt «. Judd, 14 Cal. 57. Mendock «. Harris, 30 Barb. 1, 13. McKenna ■». Hammond, 3 HUl, S. C. 68. McQ-reary v. Osborne, 9 Cal. 60. McCracken v. HaU, 7 Port. (Ind.) 34, 48. McLaughlin «. Johnson, 46 LI. 38. McLaughlin ■». Nash, 14 Allen, 1, 63. McKim V. Mason, 3 Md. Ch. 1, 5, 13, 64. McDaniel ®. Moody, 3 Stew. 1, 69. Miller v. Plumb, 6 Cowen, 60. MiUer v. Baker, 1 Met. 37, 55. Middlebrook v. Corwin, 15 Wend. 33. Mitchell V. Billingslej, 17 Ala. 1, 73. Mott V. Palmer, 1 Comstock, 38. Moore v. Smith, 34 111. 6. Mont ague v. Dent, 10 Eich's Law, S. C. 1, 34. MBbck V. Gifford, 18 N. Y. 5. N. Nausse v. Russell, 3 MoCord, 30. Nettleaon ■». Sikes, 8 Met. 8, 45. Newcomb v. Earner, 3 Johns. 50. Mblet «. Smith, 4 Tenn. 83. Noble «. Bosworth, 19 Pick. 13, 15. Noble ®. Sylvester, 43 Verm. 3. Ombomy v. Jones, 21 Barb. 40. Overton v. Williston, 31 Penn. St. 45, 82. ■Pangbom v. Patridge, 7 Johns. 83. Palmer v. Forbes, 33 111. 61. Parsons on Contracts, 51. Parsons «. Copeland, 38 Maine, 1, 60. PenbaUon v. Dwight, 10 Mass. 73. Penry v. Brown, 3 Stark. N. P. C. 35, Peck V. Batchelder, 40 Verm. 34. Peniton «. Eoberts, 2 East, 37. Pemberton v. King, 3 Dey^ 6. 10 AUTHORITIES CITED. Philbrick v. Ewing, 97 Mass. 1, 36. Pitt v. Shew, 4 B. & Aid. 88. Pickerell v. Carson, 8 Iowa, 1. Plumer v. Plumer, 10 Poster, 63> PoweU V. McAslian, 38 Miss. 6. Potter V. Comwell, 40 N. Y. 1, 6. Powell ». Monson, & Brimfleld Man. Co> 3 Mason, 1, 15, 67. Powers V. Dennison, 30 Verm. 1, 3, 83. Prescott V. De Forest, 16 Johns. 84. Price (Eng. Ex.), 77. Prince v. Case, 10- Conn. 3, 45. Providence Gas Co. v. Thurber, 3 E. I. 1. Puston V. Briggs, 16 Verm. 60. PuUen V. Bell, 40 Maine, 3. Pyle v. Pennock, 3 Watts & Sergt. 67. R. Eedlove et al. v. Barker, 4 Banks (Kansll^O. Eedfleld on Eailways, 61. Eerick «. Kern, 14 Sergt. & Eawle, 3, 45. Reynolds v. Shuler, 5 Cowen, 8, 18. Eedfleld on Divorces, Legacies, &c. 1. Eeed v. Kirke, 13 Eich's Law, 1, 3. Eice V. Adams, 4 Harrington, 51. Ricker v. Kelley, 1 Maine, 3. Eogers v. Gilinger, 30 Penn. St. 67. Eobertfr®. Duphin Deposit Bank, 19 Penn. 67, 81. Eogers et al. v. Cxaw, 40 Mo. 34. Eobertson v. Phillips, 3 Iowa, 38. Eoper on Legacies, 1. Eussell V. Eichards,' 10 Maine, 8,,45. Sands v. PfeiflFer, 10 Cal. 86.. Sherry v. Picken, 10 Ind. 73. Shannon v. Jones, 13 Ired. 73. Sheppard v. Spaulding, 4 Met. 3t. Sheffield v. Collin, 3 Kelley, 3. Simpkins v. Eogers, 15 HI. 75» Smith V. Moore, 26 111. 63. Smith's Eep. 40. Smith «. Benson, I Hill,, 8. AUTHORITIES CITED. 11 Smith's Leading Cases, 1, 9, 63. Snediker v. Warring, 2 Kern. 8. Sowden & Co. v. Craig, 26 Iowa, 63. Sorer v. Hunter, 3 B. & C, 54. Sparks v. The State Bank, 7 Blackf. 64. Stewart v. Dougherty, 9 Johns. 73. Stockwell «. Marks, 6 Shep. 38, 46. Sturgis V. Warren, 11 Verm. 18. > Stilhnan «. Hamer, 7 How. (Miss.) 3. State ex rel., &c. ». Burham et al. 18 Ired. 1. Swift V. Thompson, 9 Conn. 25. Swarz V. Swarz, 4 Barb. 3. Taffe V. Warwick, 3 Blackf. 64. Taylor's Landlord & Tenant, 30, 47, 48. Taylor v. Townsend, 8 Mass. 28, 66, 80. Talbot et al v. Whipple, 14 Allen, 12. Tabor v. Eobinson, 36 Barb. 1. 9. Terry «. Bobbins, 5 Smedes & Marsh. 69. Teaff V. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 1. The Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Allan, &c. 2 Law Rep. 61. Thresher «. East London W. W. 2 B. & C. 44. The State ®. Elliot, 11 N. H. 31, 69. Thomas ii. Crout, 5 Bush (Ky.), 31. The Metropolitan Counties, &c. v. Brown, 26 Beavan, 11. Trail V. Fuller, 28 Maine, 66. Trapper v. Harter, 2 C. &. M. 12. Tuttle V. Robinson, 33 N. H. 59. V. Vaughen v. Haldeman, 33 Penn. St. 34. ' Van Ness v. Pacard, 2 Peters, 25, 44. Vanderpoel v. Van Allen, 10 Barb. 1, 12. Voorheis v. Freeman, 2 Watts & Sergt. 9. W. Walmsby v. Milne, 7 C. B. N. S. 69. Warren ®. Leland, 2 Barb. 63. Walker v. Sherman, 20 Wend. 11, 60. Wall v. Hinds, 4 Grey, 8, 34. 12 AUTHORITIES CITED. Wade V. Johnston, 35 Geo. 6. Washburn v. Sproat, 16 Mass. 3. Wadleigh v. Janyrin, 41 N. H. 1, 10. Washburn on Real Property, 1, 3, 45, 75. Wetherbee i). Ellison; 19 Verm. 22. Wentz V. Pincher, 13 Ired. 3, 84. Whipple «. Post, 3 Johns. 73. It Whipley v. Dewey, 8 Cal. 54. White ». Amdt, 1 Wharton, 31. Whiting ®. Braston, 4 Pick. 25. Wigglesworth v. Dallison, Doug. 76. Williams on Personal Property, 73. Winslow ». Merchants' Ins. Co. 4 Met. 9. WUgres & Ewing v. Getting & Giddings, 31 Iowa, 3. Wilson V. Chalfaut, 15 Ohio, 3. WUde V. Waters, 33 E. L. & Eq. 1. Wiltshear ®. Cottrell, 18 E. L. & Eq. 1, 8. Wyndham «. Way, 4 Taunt. 27. THE LAW OF FIXTURES. CHAPTER I. PTvacvple of the Lorn of Mastm-es, amd what constitute Fixtwres. Sectiow 1. By the term fixtures are denoted those articles wMch were chattels, but wMch, by being phys- ically annexed or affixed to real estate, become a part of, and accessory to the freehold, and the property of the owner of the land. Some confusion has existed, among practitioners, as well as students, as to the definition of the law term fmtwfes, and all authorities do not agree upon this point, neither do all decisions of the courts seem to comprehend the same meaning of the term. But in this country the definition here given will- generally meet with the views of the courts. The term fwatv/res is of frequent use, and has been referred to by different writers as having different meanings, although always applied to articles of the nature of personal property, which have been affixed to land. The common and 14: THE LAW OP FIXTURES. general meaning of tlie word, is, a thing so fixed to the realty that it cannot be taken away, and that the owner of the land necessarily owns the thing, so that it cannot be removed without his permission. But some writers, and numerous reported decisions in Eng- land and America, have used the term fixtwes^ as denoting personal chattels annexed to land which may be severed, and removed against the will of the owner of the freehold, by the party, or his* personal representa- tives, who has annexed them. Pickerell v. Ca/rson, 8 Iowa, 544 ; Washhwrn on Real Property, 18 ; Hallan v. Itunder, \ C. M. an^ R. 276 ; Feran-'d on Fixtv/res, 2 ; Gihhons' Ma/nual of the Lam of Fixtn/res, 2. That definition does not express the accurate meaning of the term ia its usual application. An article attached to the realty, but which is removable against the will of the owner of the land, cannot be said to have lost the nature and incidents of personal property ; hence there seems to be no good reason for changing its name from that of a chattel, to that of a fixture. It is still mov- , able property, and the term "removable fixture" has an ambiguous meaning, is contradictory, and a solecism. The term fvxtwre, in its ordinary signification, is expres- sive of the act of annexation ; " that which is fi^ed or attached to something as a permanent appendage" {Webster'' 8 Die.); and when articles upon the realty are removable, and are not permanently annexed, there is no reason, either in law definition, or common use, for calling such things fixtures. The definition here THE LAW OF FIXTURES. 15 given is less liaWe to confuse, than any other wMch. could be given, and is recognized by tlie greater num- ber of reported decisions. Brennon v. WMtaker et al. 15 Ohio St. 446 ; leaf v. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511 ; Allison V. MoCtme, 15 Ohio, 733 ; JRc^er mi Legacies, 256; Gaffield v. Hopgood, 11 Pick. 192; Bwrk v. Baxter, 3 Mo. 207 ; McBaniel v. Moody, 3 /S'few. 314 ; Fryatt v. Sulliwdn Co., 5 ^??, 116 ; Bratton v. (7Zow/;- scw, 2 SProbh. 478 ; Fanrra/r v. Ghauffitete, 5 JDenio, 527 ; Vcmderpoel v. Fare Allen, 10 ^(srS. 157; Heaton v. Findlay, 12 Pewfi. St. 304 ; Mitchell v. BilUngsley, 17 ^fe. 391 ; Providence Gas Co. v. Thwrler, 2 P. I. 15 ; McKim V. Mason, 3 Jfc?. C%. 186 ; Wiltshea/r v. (7oi^ i5/-e?^ 18 ^, Z. (g ^3-. 142 ; Parsons v. Gopekmd, 38 Maine, 537 ; Murdoch v. Harris, 20 ^ori. 407 ; 6^0^ V. Whiting, 16 /Z/. 480 ; TFi'Zc? v. TFafe^s, 32 ^. Z. ojzJ Z"^. 422 ; Montague v. i>mi5, 10 ^^c/i. Zaw (/SI CI), 135 ; Ghristmn v. Prvpps, 28 Penn. St. 271 ; Powers v. Dennison, 30 F^rm. 752 ; Jfom v. Schwarzwaelder, 4 Z". Z. Smith, 273 ; Bryan v. Lawrence, 5 Jones' Law, 337 ; 6bAe?2- v. Zfyfe?*, 27 ifws. 122 ; ^exc? v. ZTw-/^, 12 i?^cA. Zaw (/iSl C), 54; Wadleigh v. Jamwrvn, 41 iV: Z?: 503 ; Ba^tlett v. Fboc?, 32 Ferm. 372 ; TaJer v. Pobinson, 36 Ba/rh. 483; Gongregational Society of Dubuque v, Flemmg, 11 ibwa, 533; Pedfield on Di/oorces, Legacies, c&c. ; Powell v. Monson and Brim- field Man. Go., 3 Mason, 459; 2 SmiiKs Leading Gases, 215, 238; Grippen v. Morrison, 13 Michigam,, 23; Mather v, Frazer, 2 ^ay cfe Johnson, 536; ZK?? v. 16 THE LAW OF FIXTURES. Wmtworth, 28 Verm. 428 ; JToyle et al. v. The Plaits- hurgJh ttTid Mont/real Hail/road Co. et al. 51 JBa/rh. ; Ohildress v. Wright, 2 Caldwell (Tenn.) 350 ; State Ex, rel, (&c. Y: Bonham et al., 18 Ind. 231 ; McLomghUn v. Nash, 14 Allen, 136; Philbrick v. Ewing, 91 Mass. 133; Poitfer V. Cormoell, AO JV.Y. 287. § 2. While the law divides all property into two great divisions, real and personal, these divisions are again divided into many classes, one of which, called iixtiires, emhraces a large portion of the property of this country, and is the dividing line between real and personal property; hence, to decide upom. which side of the line certain property belongs, is often a vexatious question; for, when we compare a thing at the ex- tremity of one class with a thing at the extremity of another, the difference is obvious, but when we ap- proach the point of division, difficutly arises in dis- covering where the distinction is drawn. Everything which is annexed to land by the ovmer of the land is considered as constituting a part thereof, and if the property in the land is conveyed to another, the annexations will pass with it. It is a general rule of the law of fixtures, that whatever is annexed to the freehold, becomes a part of it, and cannot be severed. English v. Foote, 8 /SI cfe i!£ 444 ; Childless v. Wright, 2 Gold/well (Tenn^ 350. Many things which, though they are even of a movable nature, yet, being neces- sarily attached to the freehold, and essential to its THE LAW OF FIXTURES. 17 wortli and enjoyment, pass with it m the same line of transfer or descent ; for the things thus attached, cannot be enjoyed apart from the land to which they are affixed. The right to the thing must, therefore, either be adjudged to the owner of the soil, or the right to the son to the owner of the thing. As the land is more durable and substantial, the property in the thing must accede to that in the land. The original rule of the common law subjected everything affixed to land to the law governing the land, but the general right of removal of certain things affixed to land, has grown up into a system of judicial legislation, and, instead of being an exception, is regarded as an established inno- vation upon the common-law rule. § 3. Where one affixes a chattel to the land of another, such act is, under many circumstances, in legal effect, a gift of the chattel to the land owner. Wash- hum V. Sproai, 16 Mass. 449; Stilknan v. JIamer, 7 How. (Miss.) 421 ; Gray v. Oj/ler, 2 JBush. {Ky.) 256 ; Wentz V. Fincher, 12 Ired. 297; JReid v. Kirh, 12 mch. Lam {8. C), 54; Dooley v. Ck^ist^ 25 III. 551. But see Orippen v. Morrison, 13 Mich. 35. But chat- tels affixed to the land of anothlr than the owner of the chattel, by the permission of the land-owner, may be removed. Hvnes v. Amenf, 43 Mo. 298 ; Brearley v. GoQG, 4 Zab. 287; PuUen v. Bell, 40 Maine, 314; Damie v. Dame, S8 JST. IT. 429 ; Higgins v. Biddell, 12 Wis. 590 ; Washbv/rn on Real Property, 4 ; Prince v. 18 THE LAW OF FIXTURES. Case, -lO Conn. 375; Rerick v. Kern. 14 Serg. &. Hawle, 267 ; Nettleson v. Sihes, 8 Met. 34 ; Russell v. Richards, 10 Maine, 429. Where the land-owner affixes the chattel of another to his land, such is a wrongful conversion. Although it is a general prin- ciple of law that a "building permanently fixed in the freehold, becomes a part of it, and is real estate ; yet, if it was erected by the builder, with his own money, and for his own exclusive use as disconnected from the use of the land, and with an understanding to that effect between the owner of the land, and the builder, it will not be a fixture, but will be considered as personal property. Owrtiss v. Hoyt, 19 Oonn. 154. And if one moves a house upon the land of another, with the knowledge and consent of the owner of the soil, or if the house, having been placed there without his knowl- edge he subsequently assents to its remaining, the house does not become a fixture, but continues to be the personal property of the person placing it upon the land. Fuller v. Taylor, 39 Maine, 519. And, as has been held in the cases of Russell v. Richards, 10 Maine, 429, and Hilborne v. Brown, 12 Maine, 162, property erected by a tenant on land of another, by virtue of a parol agreement to do so, is to be con- sidered as the personal property of the builder, and he may maintain an action of trover for it, against the pxu'chaser of the land under an execution. And the owner of the land would be liable in trespass for the removal of annexations to the land, made by another THE LAW OF FIXTURES. 19 under parol license. Richer v. Kelley, 1 Mame, 117; Ameriscbggin Bridge v. Bragg, 11 JV. II. 102 ; Wilson V. CJmlfcmt, 15 Ohio, 248 ; Sheffield v. OolUns, 3 Kelley, 82 ; Swa/rz v. Swwrz, 4 ^(*r5. 53 ; Wilgus & Mvvag V. Getting <& Giddings, 21 ic>z<;(^, 177 ; iVoSfe v. Sylvester, 42 "F^rmoji^, 146. But if an article lias been attached to land by a tenant, by virtue of a parol agreement, or license from tbe owner of the soil, wHcli otherwise would be a fixture, such, article, or property, cannot be held or taken away by the tenant as against a subsequent vendee, or mortgagee of the land, who had no notice of the agreement, or license under which the annexation was made. Powers v. Bennison, 30 Vermont, 752. It has been decided, and with much reasoning, that whatever rights may arise under a verbal license, they cannot partake of the nature of an estate in land, nor suffice to sustain an action of trespass giMi/re clausimi f regit. HoughtaiUng v. Houghtailing, 5 Barh. 379; Ben v. Baldwin, 1 Zabriskie, 390. § 4. A man may have good reasons for affixing a chattel, belonging to himself, to the land of another, and yet not be willing to part with his "title to the chattel. Thus, where A. lets a house to B., it may be necessary for B., in order to enjoy a comfortable occu- pation of the house, to fix therein articles of his own, or to temporarily annex certain chattels to the land. It would evidently be unjust to adjudge such articles to 20 THE LAW OP FIXTURES, be tlie sole property of tlie owner of the house, B. hav- ing annexed them thereto entirely for his own use. K he should be restrained by such consequences from fixing them it would be wrong and inconvenient. Such considerations as these, have led to the modification of the common-law rule referred to, and now, where a party has such occasion to affix a chattel to the land of an- other, he is allowed to remove the things so annexed, while his right upon the land continues to exist. And things thus annexed to land, and subject to this right of removal, are governed by the law of fixtures, by the rules of which law they are held not to be fixtures, but the property of the tenant. § 5. In determining whether a particular thing is, or is not a fixture, we have to inquire as to the annex- ation to the land, as to its having been affixed by the tenant, as to its having been useful or neces- sary to the tenant for the comfortable or profitable occupation of the premises, and as to the possibility of removing it without injury to the land. All these are not so much questions of law as of fact, and depend greatly upon intent and circumstances, for no rule of law can be" prescribed, which will, in every case, apply. Hooey V.' Smith, 1 Ba/rh. 372; McKim v. Mason, 3 Md. Gh. 186 ; Mendeck v. Giffm-d, 18 iV! Z 28. § 6. Whether articles are personal property or not, must, then, be determinable, and plainly appear from an inspection of the property itself, taking into con- THE LAW OF. FIXTURES, 21 sideration its nature, mode of attacliment, purpose for wMcli used, and the relation of the party making the annexation. Potter v. Cornwell, 40 iVi Y! 287 ; and in some cases, perhaps, other attending circumstances indi- cating the iatention to make it a temporary attachment, or a permanent accession to the realty. And inasmuch as it requires a positive act on the part of the yerson making the annexation to change the nature and legal qualities of the chattel into that of a fixtui"e (Hill v. Went/worth, 28 Verm. 428), the intention to make the article a permanent annexation to the realty must gen- erally, affirmatively and plainly appear ; and in many instances, if it be a matter left in doubt or uncertainty, the legal qualities of the article are not changed, and the article must be deemed a chattel. Sometimes the intention to make the article a fixture, may clearly appear from the mode of the attachment alone, as where a removal cannot be made without serious iajury to the freehold. Pemberton v. King, 2 Dev. 376 ; Hill V. Wenimorih, 28 Verm. 428 ; Main v. Schwarzwaelder, 4 M D. Smith, 273; Powell v. McAshan, 28 Miss. 70; Wade V. Johnston, 25 Ga. 381 ; Moore v. Smith, 24 III. 512. But where the attachment is but slight, and. does not enter into the physical structure of the realty, , this intention must be gathered fi'om the nature of the article, and all other attending circumstances. See Orippen v. Morrison, 13 Mich. 34. The criterion of a fixture here mentioned, must always be subject to some qualification. Whatever would otherwise be the rights 22 THE LAW OF FIXTURES. of the parties connected with an article wMcli has been connected with the realty, they are liable to be con- trolled by an established custom, or a special agreement of the parties. The parties are presumed to be cogniz- ant of an existing usage or custom, and to act with a tacit reference to it. Keogh v. Daniell, 12 Wis. 163. • § 1. In order to constitute an annexation, the thing in question should be let into the soil, or cemented to, or otherwise united with something previously let into or forming a part of the soil. Simply laying upon the land will not, generally, be enough; the connection must amount to complete annexation with the soil, or the thing will remain, to all intents and purposes, merely personal property, and cannot, under any cir- cumstances, be considered a part of the freehold. § 8. K a thing is not let into the ground, or fast- ened to a thing that is let into the ground, so that the only impediment to its removal is its own weight, it is not a fixture. Mather v. Fraser 2 Kay &-Johnson, 536; WiltsTiea/r v. Cottrell, 1^ M L. & JEq. U2 ; Cook .Y. Whiting, 16 III. 480; Mrard, 2. As an instance, in Jloi'n V. Baker, 9 East, 215, it was held that dis- tillers' vats, supported upon brick-work and timber, but not let into the ground, and vats standing on frames of wood, were goods and chattels, and that ^ other stills let into the ground were fixtures ; and it has so been held in New York. Reynolds v. Shuler, 5 THE LAW OF FIXTURES. 23 Oowm, 323; also in Missouri, Burh v. Bawter, 3 Mo. 207. But a colossal statue, resting, by its own weight, on a permanent pedestal, is a fixture. Snediher v. Warrmg, 2 Kern. 170. So, too, a cistern standing on blocks in the cellar, is a fixture. Blethen v. Towle, 40 Mcdne^ 310. And so, in tlie case oi Bainway v. Cobh, 99 Mass. 457, wbicli was a case between Heir and Ad- ministrator, a cistern was held to be a fixture, although only sitting against the walls. But a cistern and sinks, though fastened by nails, or set into the floor by cut- ting away the boards, or a water-pipe fastened to the wall by hooks, if put into a house hy a tenant, may be removed by him during the tenancy. Wall v. Hmds, 4 Grey, 256. In the case of Smith v. Benson, 1 Hill, 176, it was held that a building, though but slightly affixed to the land, is, prima facie, a part of the realty, but if built upon the land of another than the builder, and if treated by the owner of the land as a chattel, it might be removed. § 9. In some of the authorities, the intention of the party making the annexation, is laid down as the true test of a fixture. Winslow v. MercTumti Inm/ra/nce Company, 4 Met. 306 ; 2 SmWKs Leading Oases, 217. Others hold that the true test of a fixture, is its adap- tion to the use and purposes for which the realty is appropriated, however slight its physical connection with it may be. Fa/rra/r v. Stachpole, 6 Greenleaf, 157; Vborheis v. Freemam, 2 Watts & Serg. 114; GoffeY. 24 THE LAW OP FIXTURES. C Conner, 16 III 421; Tabor v. RoUnson, S6 £arh. 483. And in tlie case of Tlie Dispatch Line v. -Bil- Imny, 12 N. H. 205, the court expressed tlie opinion that actual annexation to the freehold, and adaptation to its purposes, must both unite in order to render per- sonal property incident, and appurtenant to real estate. Mr. Dane, in his Abridgment of Americam, Law, vol. ni, p. 156, says : " It is very difScult to extract from all the cases as to fixtilres in the books, any one prin- ciple on which they have been decided, though being fixed or fastened to the soil, house or freehold, seems to have been the leading one in some cases, yet not the only one Not the mere fixing or fastening is alone to be regarded, but the use, nature and inten- tion." A hotel sign attached so as to be immovable without force, to a post set firmly in the ground, seven or eight feet in the street of a city, spiked to a side- walk in front of the hotel, so placed with intent of its remaining a permanent sign therefor; held, appurten- ant to the hotel, and where the latter is conveyed for hotel purposes, with appurtenances without reservation, such conveyance carries the sign and post. Redlove et al. V. Ba/rker, 4 Bamks {Kamsas), 445. § 10, It is sufficient if the annexation to the free- hold be habitual, and not a constant attachment to it, to make the property a part of the freehold. Bishop V. Bishop, 1 Kern. 123. And where a thing affixed to the freehold is severed for a particular purpose, it still THE LAW OF FIXTUEBS. 25 remains, in legal contemplation, a part of the freehold. For instance, a millstone taken from a mill for the pur- pose of being picked, cannot be considered to lose its identity" as a part of the freehold on accoimt of such removal. Or a door, taken off its hinges for the pur- pose of being painted or repaired, would not be con- verted into a chattel. Wadleigh v. Jcmvriifi, 41 N. H. 503. § 11. In the leading case of Walker v. Shermcm, 20 Wend. 639, Mr. Justice Cowen says, " A temporary dis- annexation and removal, as of a millstone to be picked, or of an anvil to be repaired, will not take away its character as a part of the freehold. Locks and keys are also considered as being constructively annexed, and in this country it must be so with many other things which are essential to the use of the premises. Our ordinary farm fences of rails, and even stone walls, are affixed to the premises in no other sense than by the power of gravitation. It is the same with many other erections of the lighter kind about a farm. I admit that some of the cases are quite too strict against the purchaser, but as far as I have looked into them — and I have examined a good many, both English and American — ^they are almost uniformly hostile to the idea of mere loose, movable machinery, even where it is the main agent or principal thing in prosecuting the business to which a freehold property is adopted, being considered a part of the freehold for any purpose. To 26 THE LAW OF FIXTURES. make it a fixture, it must not only be essential to tlie business of the erection, but it must be attached to it in some way ; at least, it must be mechanically fitted so as, in ordinary understanding, to make a part of the building itself." When a machine is a fijxture, and some essential and necessary part thereof is movable, and detached, such part is considered as being construc- tively annexed, and will pass with the freehold. The Met/t^apoUtan Gowntiei Society v. Brown, 26 Bea/oen, 454. The case last cited is one where an anvil, though not fixed, was held to be a fixture because it was regarded as essential to a fixed steam hammer. § 12. Annexation by screws, bolts, nails, or even by tacks, has been held to constitute sufficient fixing to make the thing so affixed a part of the freehold. Mur- doch V. Harris, 20 Ba/rb. 407 ; Talbot et al. v. Whipple, 14 Allen, \11. In JBirch v. Dawson, 2 Ad. & Ellis, 57, it was held that a single screw would be sufficient fixing to make the thing part of the realty. But it was held by Lord Lyndhurst, in Trappes v. Ha/rter, 2 0. c& M. 177, that the screwing of a stocking frame to the floor to keep it steady, would not make it a fixture. And see the case of Vanderpoel v. Van Allen, 10 Barb. 157 ; McKim v. Mason, 3 Md. Oh. 186 ; Gramd Lodge of Masons v. Knox, 27 Miss. 315. § 13. Some things may constitute a part of the free- hold, although not of themselves fastened to the realty ; THE LAW OF FIXTURES, 27 for things wMch, of their nature, are necessary and peculiarly appropriated to tlie lands or parts of tlie freehold, as keys to locks, notwithstanding they have no corporal connection with the land, yet pass with it. Thus, a kettle fastened into brick- work, is a part of the realty, and if it was used with a cover, although the cover may oe movable, yet necessarily appertaining to the kettle, it would belong to it, and pass with it. Lifford's Case, 11 Cohe, 46 h.; 50 h. In Nolle v. Bos- worth, 19 Pick. 314, where the owner of land set up three dye kettles in a brick- work, the court held that they passed with the land by deed, even where there was a parol agreement that they should not pass, § 14. If a chattel be merely fixed, or screwed in a groove or socket, so that it may be removed without any injury to the groove or socket, such is not sufficient annexation to mak^ the thing a fixture. In Godda/rd v, Gould, 14 Ba/rh. 662, G. put up machinery in the mill of S., which could be removed without injury to the mill; held that this was not sufficient annexation to constitute a fixture of the machinery, and it might be removed. ^ When a tenant places screws or bolts into the floor to hold machinery in its place, and only sufficient to secure the stability necessary for the operations of the machinery, and the machinery can be removed without injury to it or the freehold, such annexation does not constitute the machinery a part of the realty. Ba/rtlett 28 THE LAW OF FIXTURES. V. Wood, 32 Verm. 372. So articles of firmiture slightly attached to the walls or floor of a house, if the thing is movable of its nature, and can he removed without injury, being only necessarily affixed for its use, such annexation is not enough to prevent removal. In Maine it has been decided that stoves stqaiding perma- nently attached, in the places where used, at the time of a levy, are fixtures; but if not standing in. their places permanently attached, and being put away in a garret for the summer, are not fixtures. JBleihen v. Towle, 40 Maine, 310. § 15. To make the thing a fixture, the annexation must be in a manner substantial and solid, with a view to permanency. Brewncm v. Whitaker et al. 15 Ohio St. 446. It is the permanent and perpetual manner of annexation, as weU as the fastening, that determines when personal property becomes a* part of the realty. Laflin v. Griffith, 35 Bm-h. 58 ; 2 Kent's Com. 439. There is no inflexible rule which will make articles which have been attached to the soil a part of the realty, where they are capable of being severed without injury to the freehold. The general rule of law re- specting such annexations, is always open to variation by agreement of parties. Crippen v. Morrison, 13 Mich. 23. When such annexations are so far virtually annexed to the freehold as to acquire the character of fixtures, they become mere incidents to the realty, and conform to the laws by which it is governed. They THE LAW OP FIXTURES. 29 are accordingly subject to tlie dower of the widow. Powell V. Mcmd. B. Mam,. Convpcmy, 3 Mason^ 469 ; they are not only subject to a mechanic's lien {Gray v. HoMsMp, 17 S. & R. 413), but a claku may be filed against a mill for the materials farnislied for the erec- tion of the steam engine by which it is propelled. In many of the States, these liens are regulated by statute. For the same reason, they are within the pro\dsions of the statute of frauds, and cannot be excepted Isg^ parol, from the operation of a deed absolute on its face. Nolle V. Bomorth, 19 Pick. 314. § 16. In determining the nature of a thing, as to its being a chattel, or part of the freehold, consideration must be taken, as we have seen, of the natv/re of the thing in question, whether it was a chattel in gross or in part before the annexation, the situation of the party making the annexation, the intention of the party, fixing, and the manner and character in which the thing in question has been treated by both the party affixing, and the owner of the freehold, the effect of custom^ and the injury which would be occasioned by removal, and \]iQpv/rpose or ohjeot for which the annex- ation was made ; that is to say, whether it was for the purpose of trade, for agricultmre, for orTiament, or for the general improvement of the estate, or all these com- bined, as is sometimes the case. CHAPTEK n. Of Annexations for the pwrpoaes of Trade. The most extensive class of annexations, and those wMcli move frequently, engage tlie attention of tlie courts, are trade a/miexations, the riglit to remove wMcli is more liberally construed as tlie occasion for setting them up is more strong. Formerly, the favor of courts existed in certain cases in behalf of particular individ- uals, giving them a right at the proper time, to remove certain annexations to the freehold; this favor was extended as to trade fixtures, and exists in this country in a liberal form, so that it may be stated generally, that whatever a tenant affixes to the freehold, for the pwfposes of the trade for which the freehold is held, he may remove at any time before the expiration of his tenancy. § 18. Things set up by a lessee during his tenancy, for the purposes of his trade, as kettles and boilers ia a tannery, stills in a distillery, tables and partitions, coimters and shelving, are not fixtures, but personal property. Thus, a bark-mill affixed to the soil, being an accessory to the tanning business, set up in relation to THE LAW OF FIXTURES. 31 trade by a tenant, is personal property. Heermance v. Vernoy^ 3 Johns. 5, See JReynolda v, SJouler^ 5 Cow. 323. Lema/r v. Miles, 4 TTa^s, 330. Machinery ia a woolen or cotton factory, wMcli is necessary to the opR-ation of the factory, held to be personal property. 8tv/rgis v. Wm-ren, 11 Vi/rm. 433 ; Hwrlcm v. Ha/rkm, 15 P&mi. St. 507. It has been held that a tenant may remove a hydraulic press, let into the ground, and walled up with solid masonry, and wooden parts of it nailed to the building, when the press is a necessity in the prosecution of the business for which the bunding is occupied. Firmey v. WatMns, 13 Miss. 291. But iron salt-pans in salt works, erected by the tenant, and the pans resting on brick- work, have not been allowed to be removed, as being, constructively, part of the freehold, and a part of the works to be left in good order. Mamfield v. Blaclcburne, 6 Bing. JV. G. 426. Machinery put into a building after its erection, by the owner, for the purposes of trade, founded on tim- bers bedded in the earth, and so attached to the build- ing as to be capable of removal without injury to it, is not a fixture which will pass by a conveyance of the land. Fa/rra/r v. Ghcmffetete, 5 B&nio, 527. It seems to be the general doctrine that chattels, being a part of the trade of the tenant, and peculiarly appropriated to it, may be removed during the tenancy. § 19. There are other cases, where the materials for 32 THE LAW OP FIXTURES. the tenant's trade are derived from the land, but for the purpose of procuring or preparing materials, fixed machinery and buildings are necessary. These are called mixed cases, between enjoying the profits of the land, and carrying on a trade. 'The procurement or preparation of the materials is considered as a trade, and the property so necessary as annexed thereto, and therefore removable by the tenant. Thus a fire-engine, erected by a tenant for life, to work a colliery, has been held to belong to him, and not to be a part of the land. Engines, and machinery firmly fixed to a build- ing by a tenant for years, for the carrying on of a busi- ness, or trade of a personal nature, must be considered the personal property of the tenant, and removable at his will during the tenancy. Cook v. Ghamplam Tra/m;portaUon Gompa/ny, 1 Denio, 91. § 20. The strict rule as to fixtures that applies as between heir and executor, applies equally as between vendor and vendee, and mortgageor and mortgagee; and growing crops, manure lying upon agricultural land, and fixtures erected by the vendor for the pur- poses of trade and manufactures, pass to the vendee of the land; but greater latitude and indulgence is ex- tended in respect to erections by a tenant for the pur- poses of trade, and the origin of it may be dated from the dawning of modern art and science. § 21. "When articles have been set up by a tenant THE LAW OP FIXTURES. 33 as being necessary implements for the exertion of Ms industry, and by wMcL. the land has been rendered more valuable, and therefore more fitted to his trade, which was to work the land in a peculiar manner, the tenant has been allowed to remove them; and when this can be done without injury to the land, it seems, as between landlord and tenant, to be a just rule of law, and foimded upon necessity of trade. But where the erections set up by the tenant are rather adapted to the particular land, than necessary to the operations of the tenant in his trade, as are agricultural buildings, which are of great value to agricultural land, and more especially adapted to the working of the land than the conducting of the trade of the tenant, and are of but little value to remove, they are considered as accessory to the land, and not trade annexations; therefore, if the tenant fix such buildings to the land, he cannot remove them. § 22. In the case of EVwes v. Mame, 3 East, 38, this question was decided. This was an action by a landlord against his tenant for taking away a beast- house, a carpenter shop, a wagon-house, a fuel-house, and a brick wall. Lord Ellenborough, who delivered the opinion of the court, held that buildings subservi- ent to the purposes of agriculture did not come within the recognized exceptions of erections set up for the advantage of carrying on a trade. This is a leading case, and the elaborate opinion therein rendered 34 THE LAW OF FIXTURES. IS referred to as a reliable and concise essay on tlie law of fixtures, as it existed at ttat time. Previous cases to that of Ehjoes v. Mame^ were decided in contradic- tion to it, but such decisions are not now regarded as authority. Under this principle of the law of fixtures, manure upon land held by a tenant for agricultural purposes, is regarded as a part of the realty, and not removable by the tenant. Middlebrook v. Corwin, 15 Wmd. 169 ; also, see 3 iV; ^ 503 ;* Goodrich v. Jones, 2 Hill, 142 ; Fay v. Muzzy, 13 Gray, 53 ; Wetherhee v. Mlison, 19 Verm. 379. § 23. It has been strongly questioned by high authority, whether erections for agricultural purposes ought not, in. this country, to receive the same protec- tion in favor of the tenant, as those things set up for the purposes of trade. The objection to the strict rule, however, rests on no sufficient groimds; because fix- tures set up for agricultural purposes merely, are pecu- liarly fitted for the farm on which they are placed, and will be equally useful to all succeeding tenants ; but not so the farmer setting them up, since on his removal, if he does not remove to a farm of the same nature and size, and being deficient in the fixtures he has placed upon the farm he has left, they will be compara- tively useless. It is, therefore, not unreasonable to infer that the farmer who erects agricultural buildings on the land only considers his convenience as occupier of that farm, and does not calculate to remove them ; THE LAW OP FIXTURES. 35 and tlius, if bearing in mind the continuance and terms of the tenancy, it were not worth, his while to erect such buildiags solely on account of their use to him during his tenancy, he would not have done so. § 24. On the other hand, the things which a trades- man, or a manufacturer, erects upon premises occupied by him, for the purpose of facilitating his trade, are generally equally useful to him, wherever he may remove, so long as he carries on the same trade or manufacture, and may not be of any yse to the suc- ceeding tenant, since he may be of a different trade. Besides, agricultural fixtures being permanently useful to the land, it is the interest of the land-owner, to annex them thereto, and a serious detriment to the land to be without them ; but annexations for the purposes of trade, being only useful to the tenant, he alone is interested in affixing them to the land. The manufac- turer or tradesman, therefore, has more cogent motives, and more pressing occasion for fixing articles to the premises occupied by him. In one case the probability and presumption is, that the erection was made for the benefit of the landlord ; in the other, that it was made by the tenant solely for his own use and benefit, for his own purposes, and on his own account, without any reference to the landlord or the interests of the free- hold. § 25. In many instances, this distinction between 36 THE LAW OF FIXTUEBS. fixtures erected for agricultural purposes, and trade annexations, tas l)een received without favor in this country, and its correctness doubted. For instance, in the case of Vcm JVess v. Faco/rd, 2 Peters. 137, 144, it was held that the huilding m question fell within the trade exception, and that a two-story huilding of wood, upon a stone foundation, with a stone cellar and a brick chimney, erected by the tenant for the residence of his family, and for the business of a dairyman, might be removed by him during his term. In WliUing v. Brastow, 4 Ppk. 310, the rule is held, by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, to be, that a tenant for hfe, years, or at will, may remove from the freehold all such improvements as were erected or placed there by him, the removal of which would not injiire the premises, or put them in a worse plight than they were in when he took possession. But, in Swift v. TTumvpson, 9 Conn. 63, the Supreme Court of Connecticut held that such annexation as would render removal without injury impossible, was necessary to constitute a fixture. § 26. Upon the whole, the extent of the tenant's rights with respect to agricultural fixtures, does not, as yet, seem to be permanently settled in all of the States of the Union, but the principle, as stated before, based upon the wise and elaborate decision of Lord EUen- borough, has attained much favor. Probably the true distinction between agricultural fixtures, and trade an- nexations may be found, between buildings which. THE LAW OP FIXTURES. 37 being erected by the tenant, are convenient or necessary merely to the occupation of the lands, and those which are necessary for the assistance of the tenant in his operations of skill and labor, irrespective of the occu- pation of the land ; or, in other words, of his trade. § 27. On this principle, too, may be justified the removal of green-houses and hot-houses by a gardener. Such buildings being instrumental to the exercise of the gardener's skill and industry in rearing plants. Penton v. Roberts, 2 Uast, 90. There seems to be no reason why hot-houses should not be removed as well as trees in a nursery ground, on the principle of trade. It is now clearly settled that gardeners and nurserymen may sell or remove trees, shrubs, plants, &c., and other produce of the ground planted by them for the pur- pose of sale, and this on the ground of their carrying on a species of trade, and the trees being purely trade annexations. King v. Wilcomb, 7 Ba/rh. 263 ; Miller v. Baker, 1 Metcalf, 27. This they may do in the ordi- nary course of their trade, but they will not be allowed to maliciously take away plants merely for the purpose of injuring the freehold, though such plants may have been planted by themselves. They are per- mitted to remove everything essential to, and connected wilh, their trade. But a person who occupies land as a farmer, and is not a professed nurseryman or gard- ener,'will not be allowed to carry off plants and trees raised by him on the demised premises, for the purpose 38 THE LAW OF FIXTURES. of sale, or planting in Ms own grounds or orchards. WyndJiam v. Way, 4 ToAint. 316. § 28. In New York, there is no distinction between annexations for trade and those for agricultural pur- poses. Dubois V. Kelly, 10 Barb. 496. In Massa- chusetts, in Taylor v. Towasend, 8 Mass. 411, it was held that the just criterion is, whether the buildings, or other annexations, can be removed without injury to the freehold. In such case, the tenant may take them away, whether intended for trade or any other purpose. In Alabama, in Ha/rhness v. Sea/rs, 26 Ala. 493, the court decided that, in the United States, public policy requires that the same protection which the common law in. England afforded to things erected for the pxu-- poses of trade, should be extended to erections for agri- cultural purposes. It may be an act of justice to the farming community, and of public policy, to make the innovation upon the common law rule as to agricul- tural fixtures, suggested by the decisions referred to, but certainly none of the principles of the law of fix- tures will justify the removal of permanent erections made by a tenant on a farm. And, indeed, it has been held that such things as are essential to the use of the freehold, should be considered as fixtures, and that this is the most sensible rule by which to determine such questions. Hoyle v. PlattshurgTi & Mont/real Railroad Oompamy, 51 Ba/rh. 45 ; Esterley''8 Appeal, 54 Perm. St. 192. In Mott V. Palmer, 1 Comstock, 564, It was de- THE LAW OP FIXTURES. 39 cided that rails made into a fence were fixtures, and would pass to tlie vendee. CUmer y. Wallace, 28 Miss. 556. But, if the rails are huilt into a fence by the tenant, under a special agreement with the landlord, they may remain the personal property of the tenant, as between himself and the landlord, but not an inno- • cent purchaser of the land. Eails not made into a' fence will not pass tmder a deed of the land. Robert- son V. PMll'vps, 3 Iowa, 220. Rails helongmg to a fence, or hauled on to the premises by the owner thereof, with the intention of making them into a fence, it would seem, are to be considered a part of the realty. And a temporary severance of rails from a fence would not deprive a vendee of his property in them as a part of the realty. McLaughlin v. Johnson, 46 III. 163. CHAPTEE m. Of Domestic amd Ornamental Amiexations. AjOTEXATioifs for ornament, or domestic annexations consist of things wliicli a tenant has affixed to his dwelling-house, or the demised premises, for the pur- pose of ornament, or to render his occupation of the premises more convenient. Ornamental annexations may "be defined to he things so affixed to the house that, although being a part thereof, yet are not of the material or necessary part of the house, but are affixed for the purpose of renderiag the occupation of the house more convenient or its appearance more pleasing, and not being such attachments as are necessary for the use of the prem- ises ; articles' which may be separated from the house without injury to the freehold. And as they are articles for the tenant's personal comfort, in the selec- tion of which he may wish to follow his own taste, they have become customary annexations by tenants, and in such cases are removable by the tenant during his tenancy. Any article which has been affixed to the house by the tenant for his domestic use, or for orna- mental purposes, and which is capable of being re- moved without injury to the house, or leaving it in a worse condition than it was before the annexation, may THE LAW OF FIXTURES. 41 "be removed by the tenant before the expiration of his term. § 30. So completely are removable annexations con- sidered, the goods and chattels of the tenant who puts them upon the premises, that under an execution against him they are liaUe to be stripped from the house and sold; and the tenant may also mortgage them, although they are not held HaUe to be taken for rent, until the tenant detaches them with a view of sale, or of applying them to some other freehold. Namse v. Eussell, 2 McGord (8. C), 329. They go to the executor, or administrator, and not to the heir, on the death of the tenant, or pass as the subject of a devise to a devisee ; or to a vendee by a conveyance. Ihylor's Landlord amd Tencmt, § 549. § 31. With this class of annexations, as with others, the tenant must remove them, if he is entitled to, be- fore he quits possession at the expiration of his lease. Thomas v. Grout, 5 Bush. (-Sy.) 37. If not removed during the term, they become the property of the land- lord. White V. ArTidt, 1 WTiarton, 91 ; 2 KenSs OoTtmi. 442. In The State v. Mliot, 11 JST. K 540, held, that windows placed in a dwelling-house by a tenant, cannot be taken away by him if he suffers them to remain on his leaving the premises. In Gaffield v. H&pgood, 17 Pick. 192, which was a case as to a fire-frame fixed in a common fire-place, with brick laid ia between the sides 42 THE LAW OF FIXTURES. of the fire-frame and the jambs of the fire-place, it was held, that a tenant cannot remove it after his lease has expired, although it was placed there by himself, but he had a right to remove it during his term. A lessee who erects on the demised premises, a building which he had a right to remove, renounces that right by surren- dering his leasehold interest to the lessor without reservation ; and the right is not revived by his sub- sequently taking another lease of the same premises from the same lessor. STiepard v. Spcmlding, 4 Met. 416. But if the tenant is prevented by the landlord, as, for instance, by injxmction, from removing articles from the land which he is entitled to, he may remove them in a reasonable time after the removal of the land- lord's obstructions, even if the tenant is out of posses- session of the premises, and his tenancy terminated. Mason v. Ferm, 13 III 525. § 32. In the case of Cross v. Ma/rston, 17 Verm. 533, it was held that if personal property is attached by a person, to a building of which he is the owner, and is used as a part of the ftimiture of the building for the convenience of the business of the occupants, but is attached in such a manner that it can be removed with- out injury to the building and the property, it does not thereby become a part of the freehold, so as to pass, by deed, from the owner of the building to a pur- chaser of the premises. THE LAW OF FIXTURES. 43 § 33. In Maine, it has been held that a tenant for a fixed term under a lease, cannot maintain trover against the owner of the house for refusing to permit him to enter, after his term has expired, and carry away a fiimace which the tenant has placed in the house, thereby causing material alterations, and the removal of which would injure the house. Stockw^ll V. Man'Tes^ 5 8Twp. 455. § 34, " Gas fix:tures," when put up by a tenant, in a house occupied by him, remain personal property, and may be removed by him. Lamrence v. Kemp, 1 Duer, 363 ; 33 Penn. 522 ; Montague v. Dent, 10 Rich. Law (S. (2), 135 ; Vaughm, v. Haldemcm, 33 Penn. St. 522 ; Wall V. Hmds, 4 Gray, 256. In this last case, besides holding gas-pipes not to be fixtures, it was also decided that a cistern and sinks, though fastened by nails, or set into the floor by cutting away the boards, and water-pipes fastened to the walls by hooks, and passing through holes cut for the purpose in the floors; and partitions, if put into a hotel or boarding-house, by a tenant, may be removed by him during the term. In the case of Rogers, e^ al. v. Crow, et al. 40 Mo. 91, the court held that gas-fittings, chandeliers, &c., do not pass to the vendee by a sale of the buUding, thus holding such articles not to be fixtures, even when annexed by the owner of the building ; yet, by the same decision, an organ in a niche was held to be a fixture, and would pass with the realty. It would be useless to attempt 44 THE LAW OF FIXTURES. to mention all tlie articles wMcli may be annexed to the realty by the tenant during Ms tenancy, and whicli would stiU remain the property of the tenant, but some examples may be given ; as, a pump put into a well, by a tenant. McOracken v. Hall, 7 Fort (Ind.) 30. Grymes v. Bower en, 6 Bing. 437. Sheds erected upon posts, by a tenant, to be used during the manufacture of brick, may be removed during the tenancy, other- wise, they vest in the landlord. Beckwiih v. Boyce, 9 Miss. 560, The tenant may take away chimney-pieces, hangings, glasses, window-blinds (JPeoh v. Batchelder, 40 Yerm. 233), pumps slightly attached, and even wainscot, if put up by himself. Ex-parte Quincey, 1 Aik, 477. In the language of the Lord Keeper, in Beck V. Behow, 1 P. Wm's, 94, "hangings, looking- glasses, &G., are only matters of ornament and furni- tiu-e, and not to be taken as part of the house, or freehold, but are removable by the lessee of the house." Under the head of articles put up by the tenant for domestic use and convenience, and allowed to be removed during the term, may be enumerated grates, stoves, fixed tables, furnaces, coffee-nulls, cupboards, chandeliers, fire-place frames, partitions, and door- plates. § 35. As to verandas erected by the tenant. Abbot, Ch. J., in the old case of Penry v. Brown, 2 Bimk, N. P. G. 403, held, that where a veranda had been erected by the lessee upon premises demised to him, the lower THE LAW OF FIXTURES. 45 part of wMch was attached to posts fixed in the ground, the tenant could not remove any part of it. There was, however, in this case, a special covenant by the tenant to leave on the premises all erections and improvements, which undoubtedly would comprehend the veranda. Where there is no such covenant, a tenant may remove a veranda, since it is nothing more than an ornamental appendage to the exterior of the house, and as necessary to the comfort and convenience of the tenant, as any ornament of the interior, besides being of itself easily removed, and that, too, without deteriorating the prem- ises. § 36. In Lyde v. Hussell, 1 £. <& Ad. 394, the ten- ant is allowed to remove bells affixed by him. All these articles referred to, whether useful or ornamental, are in a manner necessary to the tenant's domestic com- fort, and being easily severable from the house, are ^Ppable of being equally useful to him in any other house he may occupy. But things which he fixes to his house in order to complete it, such as floors, doors, win- dows, gas-pipes in the walls, a water pipe (PMTbrick v. Ewing, 97 Mass. 133), he cannot take away, because such things are peculiarly adapted to the house in which they are fixed, and can be of little use if taken away. So, also, gas-pipes laid in the ground are fixtures. See Gas Go. V. TJmrher, 2 B. I. 15. § 37. And so, if the tenant makes any substantial addition to the house, or erects permanent buUdings on 4 46 THE LAW OF FIXTURES. the premises, as a general rule, lie cannot take them away. Buildings erected for a temporary purpose, or barns erected hj persons other than the owner of the soil, and not intended to be fixtures, may, as between landlord and tenant, be considered and treated as per-* sonal property ; but as between vender and vendee, heir and executor, mortgagor and mortgagee, all buildings which enhance the value of the estate, and are designed to be occupied by the owner thereof, agreeably to the principles of the common law, become a part of the realty, and pass with it by deed, or by descent. I/eland V. Gassett, 17 Verm. 403. § 38. There cannot be the same occasion for a tenant to make such additions to the house, as there is for his placing therein articles of domestic use and ornament ; and it is only when there is, as it were, a necessity for affixing a thing to the freehold, that the law relaxes tlfl general rule, and allows it to be severed therefrom. Hence it is obvious that the right of removal by the tenant of this' class of annexations depends upon differ- ent grounds from those which prevail in cases of annex- ations for trade or manufactures. § 39. Every substantial erection by the tenant is part of the freehold, and immovable. If a tenant erects permanent and substantial buildings for domestic com- fort, upon the land he occupies, he does it at his own risk, and cannot remove them, for he should have con- THE LAW OP FIXTURES, 47 sidered their want, before becoming the lessee of the land withoTit special agreement in regard to the erection of such additional buildings. § 40. In the case of Omborny v. Jones, 21 Ba/rh. 520, it was held that where the sub-tenant, with the assent of the landlord, at his own expense, for his* own use^ but with the decla/red intention to remove it at the end of his tenancy, erected an additional building, the foundation of which was to some extent imbedded in the earth, but was in no manner fastened to the founda- tion, nor to the main building, and could be removed without doing any damage to the soil, or to the other erections upon it, it was the personal property of the sub-tenant. This decision was afterwards affirmed in 5 Smith, 234. ") § 41. It has been held, too, that a tenant cannot remove shrubs, flowers, evergreens, &c., planted by him in his garden, they not being connected with domestic comfort; and, besides, that they are transitory things. A tenant who took a house with a well-planted garden, might leave it barren, since the shrubs, § 48. But if the tenant holds over as a tenant after the end of his term, he may then remove his annexa- tions. Dubois V. Kelley, 10 Barl. 496. Or if there be an oral agreement by which the tenant was to have the 52 THE LAW OF FIXTURES. right of removal at some day subsequent to tlie termi- nation of Hs tenancy. MGOracken v. Hall, 7 Ind. 30. K a lease is renewed at its expiration, tlie tenant acquires a new interest in tlie premises, and in the absence of prevailing usage or custom, lie gbould be carefiil to incorporate in the terms of the renewal, or the new lease, his right to remove such articles as under the old lease he might have removed. For, simply, the renewal constitutes a new relation between the landlord and tenant, and the premises subject to this new relation would comprise the tenant's annexations as well as the realty, because, as we have seen, without special agree- ment, or custom to the contrary, at the expiration of the term the annexations of the tenant become fixtures, and the property of the owner of the soil. Taylor, § 552. From this it will be seen how important it is for a tenant, when he takes a renewed lease, expressly to reserve his right to things previously set up by him. And, indeed, in all cases, it is cautious to make mention in the lease of the annexations, since, in the event of the tenant's claim to the annexations being litigated, it will be incumbent upon him to prove that he annexed them to the land during his tenancy, that they are removable in their nature, and can be severed without injury to the freehold ; for the presumption accords with the gen- eral rule, that they are parcel of the realty, and the property of the owner of the land. § 49. If certain fixtures are specified in a lease as THE LAW OF FIXTURES. 53 being upon, the land at tte date of the lease, and as the property of the owner of the land, it will exclude the presumption that any other fixtures of the like nature were upon the premises at the beginning of the term. And such specifications in a lease are of advantage to the lessor, because they may prevent any dispute arising by the tenant claiming articles which are fixtures. Where a schedule of fixtures is indorsed upon, or an- nexed to a lease, such schedule is always considered a part of the lease. Emerson v. Mwrray^ 4 JV! H. 171 ; Mils V. Miller^ 3 Paige^ 254. § 50. Where the tenant leaves annexations on the demised land at the end of his term, in consequence of an agreement of the landlord to pay for them, of course the landlord will be held responsible for the value of the articles ; but such a transaction is not considered strictly a sale of goods, nor of an interest in lands, but as a contract to forbear the exercise of the right of re- moval ; and therefore such an agreement does not come within the statiite of frauds, and need not be in writing. Hallen v. Jtwnder, 1 C. M. c& JR. 2M. In this case, a tenant, a few days previous to the expiration of his ten- ancy, agreed with the landlord to leave his annexations upon the premises, and the latter to make the valuation ; the possession of the premises, and of the chattels was, in accordance with this agreement, given up by the ten- ant to the landlord, and the property left by the tenant was subsequently valued at about £10. Under these 54 THE LAW OF FIXTURES. circumstances, tlie court held tliat this was not a sale of any interest in the lands. Wheat sold by parol, while growing, is not a sale of any interest in lands, and the right of property will pass without any written articles. Austin V. Sawyer, 9 Cowen, 39 ; New comb v. Bcmier, 2 Johns. 421 n. So, too, with a growing crop of potatoes. Evans v. Roberts, 5 Ba/rn. & Ores. 829. See the sub- ject discussed in 1 Greenleafs Ev. § 271. The sale of growing crops do«s not come within the statute of frauds, and may be by parol. Ball v. Griswold, 19 III. 631. § 51. Where the contract is for the sale of fixtures, it must be in writing, the same as a contract for the sale of land, as coming within the statute of frauds ; but where the things sold are in contemplation of being severed, and interest in the land is transferred, and especially when the sale is made by one not holding the title to the land, the subject of the contract is merely in the nature of a chattel, and the sale conveys no interest in the land, nor is it considered as a transfer of personal property, but only a contract, or agreement not to remove, or to dis-annex and deliver, as the case may be, such transactions need not be in writing. Frederick v. Derol, 15 Ind. 357. If the land is considered by the parties to the contract or agreement merely as the place of custody or deposit of the articles sold, such articles are considered as being so far disconnected with the realty, that such sale would not be within the statute THE LAW OP FIXTURES. 55 of frauds. 2 Pa/rsorCs Qon. 315 ; Kerr v. Connell, Ber- ton, N. B. 151. Wliile a sale by the owner of th.e soil, of fixtures ttereon, witliout severance, may, indeed, be binding as an executory agreement between tte parties, still it wiU be invalid as against third persons. Rice v. Admns, 4 Ha/rrmgton, 332. § 52. Although the lessor cannot complain if the land is restored to him in the same condition as before the lease was given, yet if the land is suffered to come to him with additions, and improvements, he has a right to consider these additions and improvements part of the property. He cannot recognize different rights of possession in different parts of the same thing. This is not unjust toward the tenant, for as it is his own act to allow the land to descend to his landlord together with his annexations, such action may well preclude him from disputing the general presumption of law, and the old maxim, " that every portion of the freehold is the prop- erty of the freehold." § 58. This incident to the right of removal — that it be within a certain time — cannot apply the same to every case, whether the tenant is holder for years, tenant at will or sufferance, tenant from month to month, or year to year; or whether the term of the tenant is uncertain or otherwise. As to the description of articles he is authorized to remove, it would be the same in each 'of the above cases ; but the time must 56 THE LAW OF FIXTURES. apply differently to tlie different cases, for a tenant wlio is aware of tlie period wlien Ms tenancy will expire, may be expected to use a greater degree of diligence in removing his annexations to the realty, than one who, from the nature of his tenancy, is uncer- tain how long he is to continue in possession of the premises. § 54. It may, perhaps, be stated, as a general .rule, that where the estate of the tenant has determined by effluxion of time, he cannot remove annexations. And so, where he himself is the cause of his estate ceasing : for instance, where he forfeits his lease. Sorer v. HiMiter, Z B. & O. 368. The right no longer exists after a forfeiture, or a re-entry for a covenant broken. Whipley V. Dewey, 8 Cal. 36. § 55. But where his tenancy ceases on an uncertain event, against which he cannot provide, or his lease is not determinable at a given time, he is allowed a reasonable time after the tennination of his tenancy •for the removal of articles which he has affixed to the realty, and which he is entitled to remove. In such cases, no presumption of abandonment or gift arising from the conduct of the tenant, exists ; and the prop- erty remains that of the tenant, so that he may exercise the right of removal within a reasonable time. Haflech V. Stober, 11 OTiio St. 482 ; Lawton v. Lamton, 3 Atk. 13. On the same grounds, an exception exists in favor THE LAW OF FIXTURES. 57 of gardeners and nurserymen; for, in tlie case of a lease for the purpose of raising and maturing shrub- bery, plants, or trees, untO. they are ready to be trans- planted, in the absence of any express agreement to the contrary, the interest of the tenant in the land for the purpose contemplated will be held to continue until that purpose is accomplished, and the tenant may cultivate the trees, &c., until they are in a condi- tion fit to be transplanted, and then he may remove them. Miller v. Baker, 1 Met. 27. § 56. A mortgagee ia possession after recovery by the mortgagor, on a bill in Chancery to redeem, and before possession taken under the judgment, may take down and remove buildings erected by him on the land mortgaged, the materials of which belonged to him, and not so connected with the soil that they cannot be removed without injury to the freehold, or prejudice to the interest of the landlord. Taylor v. Townsend, 8 Mass. 411. § 57. In the case of Merritt v. tTudd, 14 Cal. 59, the rule is stated to be, that the right of removal exists during the tenancy, and such farther period of posses- sion by the tenant, as he holds the jfremises under a right still to consider himself a tenant, and not during the time he may actually hold possession after his lease has expired. Mr, Justice Harris, in King v. Wil- comb, 7 Barh. 263, states the general rule, that if the 58 THE LAW OF FIXTURES. tenant "omits to sever tlie addition or improvement until Ms right of enjoyment ceases, sucli omission is to be deemed an abandonment of his right, and, therefore, the addition or improvement he has made becomes, to all intents, a part of the inheritance, and the tenant, as well as any other person who severs it, becomes a trespasser To this extent the original rule of the common law, quicquid plantatwr solo, solo cedit, has yielded to the changed condition of society. Public policy, especially in this country, requires that the tenant should be permitted so to use the premises he occupies as to derive the greatest amount of profit and comfort consistent with the rights of the owner of the freehold. There may be exceptions to the general rule I have stated ; but, I think, they will be found limited to cases where the removal of addition or improvement made by the tenant would operate to the prejudice of the inheritance, by leaving it in a worse condition than when the tenant took possession." § 58. It is not unusual, and is, perhaps, advisable, for the sake of avoiding any dispute which might arise, to insert clauses in. the lease for the removal of articles, and designating the right of the tenant to annexations or improvements he may make upon the premises. If at the time premises are demised, nothing is said or covenanted in regard to articles of the character of chattels fixed to the premises, they will belong to the tenant, to be used by him during the existence of his THE LAW OF FIXTURES. 59 tenancy, as constituting a portion of the demised property, and the landlord will be precluded from afterward removing them, or insisting upon payment for them. CHAPTER V. Of the Law of FixPu/res as between Heir and Executor^ c&c, and of Mnhlements. As to wliat are, and what are not fixtures, as be- tween the heir of the owner of the real estate, and the executor or administrator of the estate of a deceased person, is often a perplexing question, and one which is constantly being agitated in courts of greater or lesser jurisdiction ; and the question to be determined in such controversies, is, whether the article in question, by its attachment to the freehold, is a part of the realty, and goes to the heir by right of inheritance, or is not a fix- ture, and passes with other personal property into the hands of the executor or administrator, the personal representative of the land-owner. In these cases, the rule is construed more favorably to the inheritance, and against the presumption of articles which the freeholder has attached to land, being personal property, and by that right not passing with the realty, Tuttle v. Rolin-' son, 3S J^.K 104. § 60. As between vender and vendee, and mortgagor' and mortgagee, the same strict rule applies which exists in regard to fixtures as between heir and executor. 2 Xenfs Com. 441 ; Dispatch Line of Packets v. Bdlamy THE LAW OF FIXTURES. 61 Man. Company, Vi N. H. 205 ; Holman v. Tremper, 20 Johns. 29 ; Main v. ScTiwarzwaelder, 4 M D. Smith, 273 ; FranMan v. Moulton, 5 Wis. 1 ; Preston v. Briggs, 16 Ferm. 124. And also as between tenants in common on a division ; this rule was applied in Parsons v. Copeland, 38 Maine, 537. The greatest indulgence in favor of considering particular articles as chattels, as between landlord and tenant, is allowed, but as between the heir and the executor, the greatest rigor in favor of the inheritance is adhered to. Case of the Olympic Theatre, 2 Browne, 286 ; Miller v. Plumb^ 6 Oowen, 665 ; MoCreary v. Oshorne, 9 Oal. 119. The House of Lords, in Fisher v. Dixon, 12 CI. & F. 312, held, that where the absolute owner of land in fee, for the purpose of better using the land, erects upon, and affixes to the freehold, certain machinery, such as is in use in making coal, and in mines, it will go to the heir as part of the real estate ; and if the corpus of such machinery belongs to the heir, all that belongs to the machinery, although more or less capable of being de- tached from it, and of being used in such detached , state, must nevertheless be considered as belonging to the heir. And in Mather v. Fraser, 2 Kay & Johnson, 536, Vice-Chancellor Wood held that even in regard to manufacturers, all articles affixed to the freehold, whether by screws, solder, or any other permanent means, or by being let into the soil, will descend to the heir, or pass by conveyance of the land ; that the rule of law by which fixtures are held less strictly when 5 62 THE LAW OF FIXTURES. erected for manufacturing purposes, tas no application to fixtures erected by the owner of the land in fee. The Supreme Court of New York, in 1839, in the im- portant case of Walher v. Sherman, before referred to, ante, § 11, decided that case, which was one between tenants in common the owners of the fee, on the same principles as if it had arisen between grantor and grantee, or as if partition had been effected by the par- ties through mutual deeds of bargain and sale. Jus- tice Cowen, in rendering the decision, says, "As between such parties the doctrine of fixtures making a part of the freehold, and passiug with it, is more exten- sively applied than between any others. As between tenant for life or years, and reversioner or remainder- man, all erections by the former for the purposes of trade or manufactures, though fixed to the freehold, are considered as his personal property, and as such, may be removed by him during his term, or be made avail- able to his creditors on Jieri facias. On his death they go to his executors or administrators ; yet, by con- veyance, they pass to the vendee. Fructus industriales, it is well known, always go, on the owner's death, to the executor or administrator, not to the heir ; whereas they are carried by a devise or other convey- ance of the land, to the devisee or vendee." § 61. In New York, as between heir and personal representative, grantor and grantee, vendor and vendee, and mortgagor and mortgagee, whatever is annexed or THE LAW OF FIXTURES. 63 affixed to tlie freehold, by being let into the soil or an- nexed to it, or to some erection upon it, to be habit- ually used there, particularly if for the purpose of enjoying the realty, or some profit therefrom, is a part of the freehold. Buckley v. HucMey, 11 Barh. 43; Fisher v. Saffer, 1 M D. Smith, 611. A mortgagee ^ains no interest in buildings put upon property for trade purposes, and not permanently fixed to the free- hold; but if the buildings are permanently affixed, they cannot be removed without the consent of the mortgagee. Kelly v. Austin, 46 III. 156. In a New York case, reported in 20 Law Hep. 678, The Farmers'' Loan and Trust Company v. Attaching Creditors of the Flushing Bailway, the Supreme Court decided, on argument, that the rolling stock of a railway, such as cars, locomotives, tenders, -, gr*^.- fil'^S?^ fjStllKrj ■^\« *