Doors, mantels, and other building mate rials which have been purchased for an un finished building and placed therein, but not attached, are not part of the realty ; Blue v. Gunn, 114 Tenn. 414, 87 S. W. 408, 69. L. R. A. 892, 108 Am. St. Rep. 912, 4 Ann. Cas. 1157 ; the main belt of a mill connecting a drive wheel with the main shaft is realty ; Friedly v. Giddings, 119 Fed. 438 ; where the owner replaced the ordinary fixed grate in the house with others, which were not physi cally attached to the main structure, it was held they were realty, since they were placed' to improve the inheritance ; [1901] 1 Q. B. 205.
Tubs, vats, and casks placed in a brewery with a design of permanent use therein and which are too large to pass out of any exist ing opening are part of the realty ; Equitable Trust Co. v. Christ, 47 Fed. 756 ; and a gaso line engine on a stone foundation in a per manent building ; State Security Bank v. Hoskins, 130 Ia. 339, 106 N. W. 764, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 376. So deer in a park, fish in a pond, and doves in a dove-house, go to the heir, and not to the executor, being, like keys and heirlooms, constructively annexed to the inheritance ; Shep. Touch. 90 ; Pothier, Trait td des Choses § 1. But loose, movable ma chinery used in prosecuting any business to which the freehold is adapted cannot be con sidered part of the real estate nor in any way appurtenant to it ; Despatch Line of Pack ets v. Bellamy Mfg. Co., 12 N. H. 205, 37 Am. Dec. 503 ; 6 Exch. 295 ; McLaughlin v. Nash, 14 Allen (Mass.) 136, 92 Am. Dec. 741; Brown v. Power Co., 55 Fed. 229. See, however, Voorhis v. Freeman, 2 W. & S. (Pa.) 116, 37 Am. Dec. 490 ; Pyle v. Pennock, 2 W. & S. (Pa.) 390, 37 Am. Dec. 517.
Chairs hired for use in a hippodrome and screwed to the floor do not cease to be chat tels ; [1903J 2 K. B. 135 ; boilers, engines, shafts and beating apparatus placed in a building for business purposes and easily re movable are not part of the realty; Bergh v. Safe Co., 136 Fed. 368, 69 C. C. A. 212, 70 L. R. A. 756; electric fixtures installed by a tenant for his personal comfort and con venience are domestic fixtures, if they can be readily detached without injury to the prem ises; Raymond v. Strickland, 124 Ga. 504, 52 S. E. 619, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 69; a gas, stove is not realty ; Hook v. Bolton, 199 Mass. 244, 85 N. E. 175, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 699, 127 Am. St. Rep. 487.
The criterion of an irremovable fixture is the united application of three requisites : (1) real or constructive annexation of the article in question to the freehold ; (2) ap propriation or adaptation to the use or pur pose of that part of the realty with which it is connected; (3) the intention of the party making the annexation to make the article a permanent accession to the free hold; Binkley v. Forkner, 117 Ind. 176, 19
N. E. 753, 3 L. R. A. 33 ; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Morgan, 42 Kan. 23, 21 Pac. 809, 4 L. R. A. 284, 16 Am. St. Rep. 471.
The general rule is, that fixtures once an nexed to the freehold become part of the realty. But to this rule there are excep tions : as, first, where there is a manifest intention to use tne fixture in- some employ ment distinct from that of the occupant of the real estate; second, where it has been annexed merely for the purpose of carrying on a trade; 3 East 88; Lemar v. Miles, 4 Watts (Pa.) 330; for the fact that it was put up for such a purpose' indicates an in tention that the thing should not become part of the freehold. See 1 H. Bla. 260. Build ings may, by agreement of parties, be erected upon land without becoming affixed thereto; Kinkead v. U. S., 150 U. S. 483, 14 Sup. Ct. 172, 37 L. Ed. 1152. But if there is a clear intention that the thing should be permanent ly annexed to the realty, its being used for purposes of trade would not, perhaps, bring the case within one of the exceptions ; 1 H. Bla. 260. The tendency of modern authori ties is to make the intention of the parties the general rule for deciding whether an ar ticle is realty or personalty ; L. R. 7 C. P. 328; Snedeker v. Warring, 12 N. Y. 170; 17 Am. Dec. 690, note; Langston v. State, 96 Ala. 44, 11 South. 334. But the intention must be definitely expressed by words or acts; mere unexpressed mental intention is of no avail ; Cook v. Whiting, 16 In. 480; Burnside v. Twitchell, 43 N. H. 390. See Morrison v. Berry, 42 Mich. 389, 4 N. W. 731, 36 Am. Rep. 446, and note. This intention will prevail except as against innocent pur chasers; Binkley v. Forkner, 117 Ind. 176, 19 N. E. 753, 3 L. R. A. 33.
Machinery used in a manufacturing plant and intended to be used for the benefit of the realty is realty as between mortgagor and mortgagee ; In re Eagle Horseshoe Co., 163 Fed. 699, 90 C. C. A. 283; but where a person placed a frame factory upon the land of another with his consent, and there was no agreement respecting the ownership of the factory, the presumption is that the build ing is still the property of the party annex ing it, and is removable by him; King v. Morris, 74 N. J. L. 810, 68 Atl. 162, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 439, 12 Ann. Cas. 1086.