The tenant may annex some things to the freehold, and yet retain the right to remove them. These things are called Fixtures. (s)1 There are no precise and certain rules, by which we can always determine what are and what are not removable. The method of affixing is a useful criterion, hut not a certain one. For doors, windows, blinds, and shutters, although capable of removal without injury to the house, and in fact detached at the time of transfer, nevertheless pass with the house; while mirrors, wardrobes, etc., although far more strongly fastened, would still be chattels. (t) In modern times, this rule is construed much more strongly in favor of the tenant, and against the landlord, than formerly; (u) and more so in respect to things put up for purposes of trade or manufacture than for other things. As between the seller and purchaser it is construed strongly against the seller. Many things pass by a deed of a house, being put there by the owner and seller, which a tenant who had put them there might have removed. In general, it may be said, that what a tenant has added he may remove, if he can do so without any injury to the premises, unless he has actually built it in, so as to make it an integral part of what was there originally (v)1

808. In New Hampshire it has been held, that where land is sold and conveyed, manure lying about a barn upon the land will pass to the grantee, as an incident to the land, unless there be a reservation of it in the deed. Kittredge v. Woods, 3 N. H. 503; Conner v. Coffin, 2 Foster (N. H.), 539. See also Parsons v. Camp, 11 Conn. 525; Goodrich v. Jones, 2 Hill (N. Y.), 142.

(s) See Hallen v. Runder, 1 C. M. & R. 266,276; Elliott v. Bishop, 28 E. L. & E. 484; s. c. 10 Exch. 496: and Amos and Ferrard on Fixtures, p. 2, for this definition. But the word is, perhaps, quite as often used to denote those things which, being added, cannot be removed.

(t) Winslow v. Merchants' Ins. Co. 4 Met. 306, 314.

(«) Dubois v. Kelly, 10 Barb. 496.

1 The character of the thing attached, not the mode of annexation, determines whether it is a fixture. Seeger v. Pettit, 77 Penn. St. 437. The premises must be left in as good condition after removal as before. Turner v. Cameron, L. R. 5 Q. B. 306. Fixtures must be removed before the end of term or possession, or they become the landlord's, even as against a judgment creditor with an incomplete levy, Thropp's Appeal, 70 Penn. St. 395; but not against a purchaser of the same, Saint v. Pilley, L. R. 10 Ex. 137. A tenant renewing must reserve right anew to remove fixtures or lose it. Watriss v. Cambridge Bank, 124 Mass. 571: Longhran v. Ross, 45 N. Y. 792. So a tenant holding over, Dingley v. Buffum, 57 Me. 381; unless the term is uncertain, Northern, etc. R. Co. v. Canton Co. 30 Md. 347; or by fault of the landlord, Goodman v. Hannibal, etc. R. Co. 45 Mo. 33; Ex parte Hemenway, 2 Lowell, 496; Thorn 'v. Sutherland, 123 N. Y. 236; Lewis v. Ocean Navigation Co. 125 N. Y. 341. Where fixtures are to be the landlord's at the end of the lease, he may Bell at any time. Thrall v. Hill, 110 Mass. 328. A tenant cannot, after bis term ends, re-enter to remove fixtures as against a purchaser without notice of his claim. Dostal v. McCaddon, 35 Iowa, 318. And see Friedlander v. Rider, 30 Neb. 783. See, generally, as to fixtures and requisites, McRea v. Central Bank, 66 N. Y. 489. - K.

(v) We give below a statement of all the things which have been held removable, and of those which have been held not removable. But it must be remembered, that each decision rested more or less upon the peculiar circumstances of the case, and may fail as authority when applied to another case which apparently resembles it. - 1. List of things held not to be removable: Agricultural erections, Elwes v. Maw, 3 East, 38; Contra, Dubois v. Kelly, 10 Barb. 496; Ale-house bar, Kinlyside v. Thornton, 2 W. Bl. 1111 , Barns fixed in the ground, Elwes v. Maw, supra; Beast-house, id.; Benches affixed to the house, Co. Lit. 53 a; Box-borders, not belonging to a gardener by trade, Empson v. Soden, 4 B. & Ad. 655; Statue erected as an ornament to grounds, and a sun-dial, Snedeker v. Warring, 2 Kern. 110; Carpenter's shop, Elwes v. Maw, supra; Cart-house, id.; Chimney-piece, not ornamental, Leach v. Thomas, 7 C & P. 327; Closets affixed to the house, Kimpton v. Eve, 2 Ves. & B. 349; Conduits, Nicholas v. Chamberlain, Cro. J. 121; Conservatory, substantially affixed, Buckland v. Butterfield, 2 Br." & B. 54; Doors, Cooke's case, Moore, 177; Dressers, Kinlyside v. Thornton, supra, Elowers, Littledale, J., in Empson v. Soden, supra; Fold-yard walls, Elwes v. Maw, supra; Fruit-trees, if tenant be not a nursery-man by trade, Wyndham v. Way, 4 Taunt. 316; Fuel-house, Elwes v. Maw, supra; Glass Windows, Co. Lit. 53 a; Herlakenden's case, 4 Rep. 63; Hearths, Poole's case, 1 Salk. 368; Hedges, Parke, J., in Empson v. Soden, supra; Locks and keys, Liford's case, 11 Rep. 50; Cowen, J., in Walker v. Sherman, 20 Wend. 636, 639; Millstones, 14 H. 8, 25 b, pl. 6, Liford's case, supra: The Queen v. Wheeler, 6 Mod. 187; Shep. Touch. 90; Looms substantially affixed to the floor of a factory, Murdock v. Harris, 20 Barb. 407; Manure, Daniels v. Pond, 21 Pick. 367; Middlebrook v. Corwin, 15 Wend. 169; Lassell v. Reed, 6 Greenl. 222; Sawyer v. Twiss, 6 Foster (N. H.), 345. But see Staples v. Emery, 7 Greenl. 201; Partitions, Kinlyside v. Thornton, supra; Pigeon-house, Elwes v. Maw, supra; Pineries, substantially affixed, Buckland v. Butterfield, supra; Pump-house, Elwes v. Maw, supra; Trees, Empson v. Soden, supra; Wagon-house, Elwes v. Maw, supra; Poles used necessarily in cultivating hops, which were taken down for the purpose of gathering the crop and piled in the yard, with the intention of being replaced in the

1 As between mortgagor and mortgagee the following are removable: Portable furnace, resting by its own weight on the ground, and gas fixtures, Towne v. Fiske, 127 Mass. 125; Rahway Sav. Inst. v. Irving St. Church, 9 Stewart, 61; gas fixtures screwed on and mirrors on supports, McKeage v. Hanover Fire Ins. Co. 81 N. Y. 38; rolling-stock of railroad, Williamson v. N. J. S. R. Co. 2 Stewart, 311; Speiden v. Parker, 46 N.J. Eq. 292; certain machines, Keve v. Paxton, 11 C. E. Green, 107; Case v. Arnett, id. 459. As to mirrors in niches for the purpose, see Ward v. Kilpatrick, 85 N. Y. 413. The following are not removable: Looms affixed to the floor by nails which may be drawn without any serious damage to the floor, Holland v, Hodgson, L. R. 7 C. P. 328; Ottumwa Woollen Co. v. Hawley, 44 Ia. 57; a factory bell in its tower, and a blower pipe for taking air from a blower to a forge, Alvord Carriage Co. v. Gleason, 36 Conn. 86; platform scales, for permanently weighing stock and grain, Arnold v. Crowder, 81 Ill. 56; an iron table weighing thirty-three tons, on brick foundations, and adapted only for use in a glass factory, where placed, Smith Paper Co. v. Servin, 130 Mass. 511; an embossing-press, Pope v. Jackson, 65 Maine, 162; manure, Chase v. Wingate, 68 Maine, 204. A railroad track put down as a permanency is not removable as between seller and buyer. Van Keuren v. Central Railroad, 9 Vroom, 165. Trade fixtures may be removed, as steam engines and boilers, Holbrook v. Chamberlin, 116 Mass. 155; an ice-house, Antoni v. Belknap, 102 Mass 193; Crowie v. Hoover, 40 Ind. 49; counters or counting-rooms nailed to the floor, Guthrie v. Jones, 108 Mass. 191; Brown v. Wallis, 115 Mass. 156; heavy machinery, as a trip hammer, Heffner v. Lewis, 73 Penn. St. 302. For other cases as to machinery see Rosewell Alta Min. Co. v. Iowa Gulch Min. Co. 15 Col. 29; Hopewell Mills v. Taunton Savings Bank, 150 Mass. 519; Manwaring v. Jenison, 61 Mich. 117; Cavis v. Bickford, 62 N. H. 229; Langdon v. Buchanan, id. 657; Helms v. Gilroy, 26 Pacific Rep. 851 (Ore.); Vail v. Weaver, 132 Pa. 363; Padgett v. Cleveland, 33 S. C. 339; Phelan v. Boyd, 14 Southwestern Rep. (Tex). - K.