FIXTURES, in law, chattels which have been so fixed or attached to land (as it is expressed in English law, "so annexed to the freehold"), as to become, in contemplation of law, a part of it. All systems of law make a marked distinction, for certain pur poses, between immovables and movables, between real and per sonal property, between land and all other things. In the case of fixtures the question arises under which set of rights they are to fall—under those of real or of personal property. The general rule of English law is that everything attached to the land goes with the land—quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit. The rigour of this rule has been modified by a large number of exceptions formulated from time to time by the courts as occasion arose.
In order to constitute a fixture there must be some degree of annexation to the land, or to a building which forms part of it. Thus it has been held that a barn laid on blocks of timber but not fixed to the ground itself is not a fixture, and the onus of showing that articles not otherwise attached to the land than by their own weight have ceased to be chattels rests with those who assert the fact. On the other hand, an article, even slightly affixed to the land, is to be considered part of it, unless the circum stances show that it was intended to remain a chattel. The ques tion is one of fact in each case—depending mainly on the mode, degree, and object of the annexation and the possibility of the removal of the article without injury to itself or the freehold. In certain cases the courts have recognized a constructive annexa tion, when the articles, though not fixed to the soil, pass with the freehold as if they were, e.g., the keys of a house, the stones of a dry wall, and the detached or duplicate portions of machines. For the lease of a house the term "fixture" means something affixed to the premises after the structure was completed and does not in clude things forming part of the original structure. (Boswell v. Crucible Steel Co., 1925, I K.B. 119.) Questions as to the property in fixtures principally arise—(1) between landlord and tenant, (2) between heir and executor, (3 ) between executor and remainder-man or reversioner, (4) between seller and buyer.
(I) At common law, if the tenant has affixed anything to the freehold during his occupation, he cannot remove it without the permission of his landlord. But an exception was established in favour of trade fixtures. It may be stated as a general rule that things which a tenant has fixed to the freehold for the purpose of trade or manufacture may be taken away by him, whenever the removal is not contrary to any prevailing practice or the particular terms of the contract of tenancy, and can be effected without causing material injury to the estate or destroying the essential character of the articles themselves (Lambourn v. McLellan 1903, 2 Ch. 269). Agricultural tenants were not entitled, at common law, to remove trade fixtures. But the Landlord and Tenant Act 1851 granted such a right of removal in the case of buildings or machinery erected by a tenant at his own expense, and with his landlord's consent in writing, provided that the freehold was not injured or that any injury was made good, and that before re moval a month's written notice was given to the landlord, who had an option of purchase. Under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1923 fixtures erected by the tenant are removable by him, within a reasonable time after the termination of the tenancy, subject to the landlord not electing to take them over at a valuation (s. 22). These provisions apply to market gardens ; as to allotments see the Allotments Act 1922 and ALLOTMENTS and SMALL HOLDINGS.
Again, ornamental fixtures set up by the tenant for ornament and convenience, such as hangings and looking-glasses, tapestry, iron backs to chimneys, wainscot fixed by screws, marble chim ney pieces, are held to belong to the tenant and to be removable without the landlord's consent. Here again the extent of the privilege has been a matter of some uncertainty.
In all these cases the fixtures must be removed during the term. The tenant's right to the fixtures is not, however, destroyed by the mere expiry of the term if he still remains in possession ; but if he has once left the premises he cannot come back and claim his fixtures. The theft by a tenant or lodger, or the husband or wife of any tenant or lodger, of any fixture left to be used by any such person in or with any house or lodging is a felony. (Larceny Act 1916, s. 16.) (2) As between heir and executor or administrator. The ques tion of fixtures arises between these parties on the death of a person owning land. The executor has no right to remove trade fixtures set up for the benefit of the inheritance. As regards orna mental objects, the rule quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit, was in early times somewhat relaxed in favour of the executor. As far back as 1701 it was held that hangings fixed to a wall for orna ment passed to the executor; and, although the effect of this re laxation was subsequently cut down, it is supported by the deci sions of the courts affirming the executor's right to valuable tapestries affixed by a tenant for life to the walls of a house for ornament and their better enjoyment as chattels (Leigh v. Taylor, 1902 App. Cas. 157; and see In re Hulse 1905, Ch. 406) ; and the same has been held as to statues and bronze groups set on pedes tals in the grounds of a mansion house.
(3) When a tenant for life of land dies the question of fixtures arises between his representatives and the persons next entitled to the estate (the remainder-man or reversioner). The remainder man is not so great a favourite of the law as the heir, and the right to fixtures is construed more favourably for executors than in the preceding cases between heir and executor. Whatever are executor's fixtures against the heir would therefore be executor's fixtures against the remainder-man. Agricultural fixtures are not removable by the executor of a tenant for life.
(4) As between seller and buyer, a purchase of the lands in cludes a purchase of all the fixtures. But here the intention of the parties is of great importance. Similar questions may arise in other cases, e.g., as between mortgagor and mortgagee. The question of what is or is not a fixture must also often be considered in ques tions of rating or assessment. A sale of settled land may be made subject to a stipulation that fixtures shall be taken by the pur chaser at a valuation, and the amount of such valuation is part of the price of the land and forms "capital money" accordingly. See the Settled Land Act 1925, s• 49 The law of Scotland as to fixtures is the same as that of Eng land. The Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1923, s. 29 and, as to market gardens, s. 42, gives a similar statutory right of re moval. The law of Ireland has been the subject of special legis lation. (See LANDLORD AND TENANT.) The French Code Civil recognizes the right of the usufructuary to remove articles at tached by him to the subject of his estate on the expiry of his term, on making good the place from which they were taken (Art. 599) ; and there are similar provisions in the Civil Codes of Italy (Art. 495), Spain (Arts. 487, 489), and Germany (Arts. 103 7, 1049) . Certain classes of movables are treated in law as immovable by destination and pass with the land as such. See Burge, Col. and For. Laws, end ed. IV. pt. I. The law of the United States as to fixtures is substantially identical with English common law. Constructive, as well as actual, annexation is recognized. The same relaxations (from the common law rule quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit) as regards trade fixtures and ornamental fixtures, such as tapestry, have been recognized.
In Mauritius the provisions of the Code Civil are in force without modification. In Quebec (Civil Code, Arts. 374 et seq.) and St. Lucia (Civil Code, Arts. 368, et seq.) they have been re-enacted in substance. Some of the British colonies have con ferred on tenants a statutory right to remove fixtures.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.--English law: A. Amos and J. Ferard, Law of Bibliography.--English law: A. Amos and J. Ferard, Law of Fixtures (3rd ed., 1883) ; W. C. Ryde, Law and Practice of Rating (5th ed., 1925). Scots Law: R. Hunter, Landlord and Tjnant (1878) ; J. Erskine, Principles of the Law of Scotland (2Ist ed., 1911) ; W. M. Gloag and R. C. Henderson, Introduction to the Law of Scotland (1927) ; American Law: Bronson, Law of Fixtures (St. Paul, 1904) ,• J. Reeves, Real Property (Boston, 1904) ; Ruling Cases (London and Boston, I894-190I), tit. "Fixtures" (American Notes) . (A. W. R.)