FIXTURES (from fix, Fr. firer, from AIL. fixare, to fasten, frequentative of Lat. figere, to fasten). In English and American law, chattels which are so annexed or attached to the soil as to become, in legal contemplation, a part thereof. The term land. in our legal system, comprehends not only the earth, but all the material improve ments, such as houses, fences, and the like, which are permanently affixed thereto; and chattels which become so annexed lose their identity as chattels, and their character of personal prop erty, and become land and real property. The general rule as to what constitutes a fixture legally immovable is that it must be either let into the earth, or cemented or otherwise united to some erection previously attached to the ground, so that it would be waste to remove it afterwards. But it must be remarked that a tenant may in all eases construct any erection he may make in such a manner as that it shall not become a fixture. Thus, if he erect even build ings—as barns, granaries, sheds, and mills—upon blocks, rollers, pattens, pillars. or plates, rest ing on brickwork, they may be removed although they have sunk into the ground by their own weight. But the mode of annexation to the free hold is not always conclusive as to its legal effect, as an article like a picture or chandelier may be secured to the wall or ceiling of a room by screws or otherwise for a merely temporary pur pose without becoming a fixture, and, on the other hand, a heavy object. as a statue or monu ment, resting upon the ground of its own weight. but intended for the permanent improvement of the premises, may become a part of the freehold.
In general. however, there must be an actual annexation to the soil, and where that exists the article annexed becomes a fixture irrespective of the motive with which it was affixed. To this rule various exceptions have been made in favor of what have been called trade fixtures, or fix tures erected by a tenant for life or for years for the purpose of carrying on a trade, and this principle has been extended by the courts to a variety of ornamental and domestic fixtures added to the premises by such a tenant. The ex ception does not go to the length of holding that such articles do not acquire the character of fixtures, but merely permits their removal by the tenant at or before the end of his term. If the removal be delayed beyond that time, the right is lost, and, generally, the same result fol lows the taking of a new lease by the tenant without• reserving such right of removal. In the ease of a life tenant. such fixtures may be re moved by his executor within a reasonable time after the tenant's death. It is difficult to state
the limits of this exception with reference to trade fixtures with any approach to accuracy. '('lie following is perhaps as near an approach as the varying circumstances of each individual case will admit of: "Whenever the following circum stances occur, it may be confidently pronounced that there the tenant may safely remove the article, Thus, things which the tenant has fixed to the freehold for the purposes of trade or manu facture may be taken away by him whenever the removal is not contrary to any prevailing prac tice; where the articles can be removed without causing material injury to the estate, and where of themselves they were of a perfect chattel na ture before they were put up, or at least have in substance that character independently of their union with the soil—or, in other words, where they may be removed without being entirely de molished, or losing their essential character or value." Nurserymen have been allowed to remove trees and shrubs which they have planted express ly for purposes of sale, but not to plow up straw berry beds, out of the ordinary course of man agement of the nursery ground.
While in the United States the law governing the annexation and removal of fixtures is in gen eral the same as in England, certain minor details have been worked out to different results. For instance, the English discrimination against build ings for agricultural purposes has been generally disregarded in the United States. It must be re marked also that the rule is different as between different parties. As between landlord and ten ant the rule favors the tenant. As between grantor and grantee. and mortgagor and mort gagee. the tendency is to consider doubtful articles as fixtures. So as between heir and ex ecutor, the basis of the rule is that the intention of the person making the attachment shall be considered in doubtful eases; and that generally where removal would cause an injury to the free hold a permanent fixture will be presumed to have been intended.
An interesting question in regard to the rolling stock of railroads has received much attention from the courts. The results reached have been diametrically opposite in different States, some courts holding that the rolling stock is not a part of the road proper, and would not be covered by a general mortgage of the real estate, and other tribunals deciding. on a similar state of facts, that the rolling stock would form a part of the realty. The former view is the prevailing one. See LANDLORD AND TENANT; REAL PROPERTY, and the authorities there referred to.