Fixtitre

a thing fixed or affixed to another thing. A thing fixed in a greater or less degree to realty.' Anything annexed to the freehold; that is, fastened to or connected with it. A chattel annexed to the freehold, but removable at the will of the person who annexed it.8 Does not necessarily import a thing affixed to the freehold. The word is modern, and generally understood to comprehend any article which a tenant has the power of removing.9 As a rule, articles, to become fixtures, must either be fastened to the realty or to what is clearly a part of it, or they must be placed upon the land with a manifest intent that they shall permanently remain there, 'i Je Pacific Eailway Commission, 32 F. E. 263 (1887), Sawyer, Cir. J.; 1 Story, Eq. H. § 325, cases. = 3 Story, Eq. § 1490; Lewis v. Shainwald, 7 Saw. 413 (1831), cases. 3 L. fixu Tn; figuere, to fasten, attach. I Cricket v. State, 18 Ohio St. 81 (1868). s [Hedrick v. United States, 16 Ct, CI. 101 (1880), Davis, J. ' [8 Kent, 343. ' Elwes V. Mawe, 3 Sm. L. C. 177, 187, cases. " [Hallen ii. Eunder, 1 Crom., M. & E. 376 (1834), Parke, B. Sheen v. Eickle, 5 M. & W. 188 (1839), Parke, B. and should be peculiarly fitt.ed to something that is actually fastened upon it, and essential to its profitable enjoyment.' If the building, or permanent fixture, is erected upon or attached to the realty by the owner of the realty, it is not the subject of conveyance as personalty, even by the owner of the freehold... If a building is erected without the assent of the landowner, it becomes at once a part of the realty, and is the property of the owner of the freehold. A building, resting upon blocks and not firmly attached to the freehold, placed upon another'.s land by his assent, continues to be personalty even though there is no express agreement that the owner shall remove it. Articles that may assume the character of realty or personalty, accordiug to circumstances, are " fixtlu-es " — things substantially and permanently affixed to the soil, though in their nature removable. The old notion of physical attachment is, by some com'ts, regarded as exploded. Whether a structure is a fixture depends upon the nature and character of the act by which the structure is put in its pla-ce, the pohcy of the law connected with its purpose, and the intent of those concerned in 'the act. Other courte still hold that it is essential that the article should not only be annexed to the freehold, but that it should clearly appear that a permanent accession was intended. A thing is deemed to be affixed to land when attached by the roots, imbedded in it, permanently rest-" ing upon it, or permanently attached to what is thus permanent.* The persons between whom questions ordinarily arise in relation to fixtures are: vendor and vendee, including mortgagor and mortgagee; heir and executor; landlord and tenant; executor of tenant for life, and reversioner or remainder-man. The rule of the common law is that whatever is once annexed to the freehold becomes part of it, and cannot afterward be removed, except by him who is entitled to the inheritance. The rule, however, was never infiexible or without exceptions. It was construed most strictly between executor and heir, in favor of the latter; more liberally between tenant fdr life or in tail and remainder-man or reversioner, in favor of the former; and with much greats latitude between landlord and tenant, in favor of the tenant. But an exception of a m\ich broader cast, and almost as ancient as the rule itself, is of fixtures erected for purposes of trad". Upon principles of public policy, and to encom-age trade and manufactures, fixtxu-es erected to cp-rry on a business have been allowed to be removed by the tenant during his term, and are deemed personalty for many other purposes.* ' Farmer's Loan. &c. Co. v. Hendrickson, 85 Barb. 489 (1857), Strong, P. J. = Washburn, Eeal Prop. 3. = Washb. E. P. 6 (18); Hill v. Sewald, 53 Pa. 373-75 (1866); Meigs's.Appeal, 63 id. 33 (1869); Capen ii. Peckham, 35 Conn. 93-94 (1868); Voorhees v. Mo Ginnis, 48 N. Y. 2S2 (1872); Stout v. Stoppel, 30 Minn. 58 (1888), cases. ' Cal. Civil Code, § 660. As between mortgagor and mortgagee, the mortgagor may remove that which is not a fixture, and ivhlch was placed upon the ground after the mortgage was executed.' The law imposes no obligation on a landlord to pay the tenant tor buildings erected on the demised premises. The common-law rule is that all buildings become part ot the freehold. The innovation on this rule has extended no further than the right of removal ivhlle the tenant is in possession. Eolling-stock is inseparably connected with its railroad in its entire length, and is part of the security of lienholders." Trees reared in nursery grounds tor sale as merchandise possess none ot the legal characteristics ot fixtures. Fixtures are articles which have an existence independent ot the freehold, and are afterward annexed to and become part of, it. * See Emblements. But there is no universal test for determining whether an article, personal in nature, has acquired the character ot realty. In each case regard is to be had to the nature ot the chattel itself, the injury that would result from its removal, and the intention in placing it upon the premises with reference to trade, agriculture, or ornament. See Machinery; Store.