(1.) As a general rule, 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. In a case before Lord Holt it was held that a soap-boiler might, during his term, remove the vats he had set up for trade purpose, and that not by virtue of any special custom, but “by the common law in favour of trade, and to encourage industry.” Agriculture is not a trade within the meaning of this exception, and fixtures erected by a farmer for the purposes of agriculture may not be removed without the landlord’s consent. On the other hand, nurserymen and gardeners, whose industry closely resembles agriculture, are allowed to remove trees, shrubs, &c., planted by them with a vie∖v to sale. It seems probable that the introduction of more elaborate mechanical processes in agriculture— particularly the use of steam-power—may have the effect of modifying the law as to agricultural fixtures. The statute 14 and 15 Vict. c. 25 enacts that, when a tenant-farmer has, with the written consent of his landlord, erected buildings, machinery, <fcc,, for agricultural or trade purposes, the same shall be his property, and removable by him, after giving notice to the landlord, who may, however, elect to purchase them.

Again, ornamental fixtures, such as hangings and looking-glasses, tapestry, iron-backs to chimneys, wainscot fixed by screws, marble chimney-pieces, are held to belong to the tenant, and to be removable without the landlord’s consent. Here again the extent of the privilege is a matter of some uncertainty. In one case it was held that the privilege did not extend to a conservatory erected on a brick foundation 15 inches deep, and connected with other buildings. Mr Amos, in his book on fixtures, mentions four points which would be important in settling whether an ornamental fixture is removable or not :—(1 ) the mode in which it is united with the freehold ; (2) its nature and construction, whether meant to be a temporary or permanent improvement; (3) whether it can be easily removed without injury to the freehold; (4) whether there is any local usage.

In all these cases the fixtures must be removed during the term. If the tenant gives up possession of the premises without removing the fixtures, it will be presumed, it appears, that he has made a gift of them to the landlord, and that presumption probably could not be rebutted by positive evidence of a contrary intention. His 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. In one case where the fixtures had actually been severed from the freehold after the end of the term, it was held that the tenant had no right to recover them.

(2.) As between heir and executor or administrator. The question of fixtures arises between these parties on the death of a person owning land. His real property goes to his heir; his personal property goes to his executor. In this case exceptions introduced in favour of the tenant are not allowed in favour of the executor, for, as it is said, tho “heir is a favourite of the law.” There is some conflict of authorities on this point, and cases might be cited on both sides of the question, whether the executor as against the heir has a right to ornamental or even to trade fixtures. Thus in one case a cider-mill let into the ground was held to belong to the executor; in another (a Scotch case before the House of Lords) colliery machinery was awarded to the heir, although portions of it might have been detached without any injury to tho land Blackstone lays down the rule that whatever is strongly affixed to the freehold {quod ex aedibus non facile revellitur) passes to the heir.

(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 is executor’s fixtures against the heir would therefore be executor’s fixtures against the remainder-man. And the result of the cases seems to be that, as against the remainder, the executor of the tenant for life would be certainly entitled to trade fixtures.

Similar questions may arise in other cases, e.g., as between mortgagor and mortgagee. When land is conveyed the fixtures pass with it, unless a contrary intention is expressed in the conveyance. Again, in reference to bills of sale the question arises. Bills of sale are dispositions of personal property similar to mortgages, the possession remaining with the person selling them. To make them valid they must be registered, and so the question has arisen whether deeds conveying fixtures ought not to have been registered as bills of sale. Unless it was the intention of the parties to make the fixtures a distinct security, it seems a deed of mortgage embracing them does not require to be registered as a bill of sale.