81 See Williamson v. Railway Co., 25 N. J. Eq. 13; Stevens v. Railway-co., 31 Barb. 590; Beardsley v. Bank, 31 Barb. 619; Hoyle v. Railway Co., 54 N. Y. 314; Chicago & N. W. Ry. v. Ft. Howard, 21 Wis. 45; Coe v. Railway Co., 10 Ohio St. 372; Midland Ry. Co. v. State, 11 Ind. App. 433, 38 N. E. 57; Hoyle v. Railway Co., 54 N. Y. 314.

82 l stim. Am. St. Law, § 468. But there are provisions to the contrary in other states. Id. § 2100.

83 Burnside v. Twitchell, 43 N. H. 394; Murdock v. Gifford, 18 N. Y. 28; Smith Paper Co. v. Servin, 130 Mass. 511; Ferris v. Quinby, 41 Mich. 202, 2 N. W. 9; Curran v. Smith, 37 111. App. 69; Wade v. Brewing Co., 10 Wash. 284, 38 Pac. 1009; Parsons v. Copeland, 38 Me. 537.

84 Green v. Phillips, 26 Grat. 752; Morris' Appeal, 88 Pa. St. 368; Huston v. Clark, 162 Pa. St. 435, 29 Atl. 866, 868; Shelton v, Ficklin, 32 Grat 727; Brennan v. Whitaker, 15 Ohio St. 446; Parsons v. Copeland, 38 Me. 537; Huston v. Clark, 3 Pa. Dist. R. 2.

85 Walker v. Sherman, 20 Wend. 636; Winslow v. Insurance Co., 4 Metc. (Mass.) 306; Voorhees v. Mcginnis, 48 N. Y. 278; Christian v. Dripps, 28 Pa. St 271; Hill v. Hill, 43 Pa. St. 521; Laflin v. Griffiths, 35 Barb. 58; Mc-connell v. Blood, 123 Mass. 47; Winslow v. Insurance Co., 4 Metc. (Mass.) 306; Curran v. Smith, 37 111. App. 69; Keeler v. Keeler, 31 N. J. Eq. 181; Rice v. Adams, 4 Harr. (Del.) 332; Trull v. Fuller, 28 Me. 545; Davenport v. Shants, 43 Vt. 546; Case Manuf'g Co. v. Garven, 45 Ohio St. 289, 13 N. E. 493; Citizens' Bank v. Knapp, 22 La. Ann. 117.

86 Mckim v. Mason, 3 Md. Ch. 186; Cherry v. Arthur, 5 Wash. St. 787, 32 Pac. 744. See Burnside v. Twitchell, 43 N. H. 390.

87 Voorhis v. Freeman, 2 Watts & S. 116; Pyle v. Pennock, 2 Watts & S. 390.

88 Lawton v. Salmon, 1 H. Bl 259, note.

89 Tabor v. Robinson, 36 Barb. 483. But see, as to an ice chest, Park v. Baker, 7 Allen, 78.

90 Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Hendrlckson, 25 Barb. 484. And see cases cited ante, note 80.

91 Mccall v. Walter, 71 Ga. 287.

92 Guthrie v. Jones, 108 Mass. 191. But see O'brien v. Kusterer, 27 Mich. 289.

93 Cook v. Transportation Co., 1 Denio (N. Y.) 91; Lemar v. Miles, 4 Watts, 330; Robertson v. Corsett, 39 Mich. 777; Crane v. Brigham, 11 N. J. Eq. 29.

94 Cooper v. Johnson, 143 Mass. 108, 9 N. E. 33; Conrad v. Mining Co., 54 Mich. 249, 20 N. W. 39; Merritt v. Judd. 14 Cal. 60: Kelsey v. Durkee, 33 Barb. 410; Hayes v. Mining Co., 2 Colo. 273.

95 Holbrook v. Chamberlain, 116 Mass. 155; Moore v. Smith, 24 111. 512.

96 Chidley v. Churchwardens of West Ham, 32 Law T. (N. S.) 486. So vats of a soap boiler, but not partitions, etc., which were put up to complete the house, may be taken on execution. Poole's Case, 1 Salk. 368.

97 Beers v. St John, 16 Conn. 322; Walton v. Wray, 54 Iowa, 531, 6 N. W. 742; Kissam v. Barclay, 17 Abb. Prac. 360; Macdonough v. Starbird, 105 Cal. 15, 38 Pac. 510; West N. Car. Ry. v. Deal, 90 N. C. 110; Security Loan & Trust Co. v. Willamette Steam Mills Lumbering & Manuf'g Co., 99 Cal. 636, 34 Pac. 321. But buildings, though erected solely for purposes of trade, may be of so substantial a character that they are irremovable. Whitehead v. Bennett, 27 Law J. Ch. 474. And cf. Felcher v. Mcmillan, 103 Mich. 494, 61 N. W. 791. made partly for purposes of trade and partly to secure the enjoyment of the demised estate, as in the case of engines erected in a colliery 98 or brickyard, or trees set out in a nursery; 99 or it may be that the fixtures are partly for domestic use and convenience and partly for purposes of trade.100

Same - Agricultural Fixtures.

Agricultural fixtures are, as the name shows, those which are used in farming, and consist principally of barns, sheds,101 and farm machinery, such as cotton gins.102 In England agricultural fixtures are for the most part irremovable,103 but the rule is otherwise in many of the United States,104 though it is not as liberal as in the case of trade fixtures.105

Manure made on a farm becomes part of the realty, and cannot be lawfully treated as personalty by one not the owner of the fee,106 except when it is made from material not obtained on the premises, as in the case of a livery stable.107 Manure passes with

98 Lawton v. Lawton, 3 Atk. 12.

99 King v. Wilcomb, 7 Barb. 263; Miller v. Baker. 1 Mete. (Mass.) 27.

100 van Ness v. Pacard, 2 Pet. 137, held that a dwelling house erected by a dairyman and used as accessory to that business was removable. See, also, Wall v. Hinds, 4 Gray, 256; Oapehart v. Foster (Minn.) 63 N. W. 257.

101 Elwes v. Maw, 3 East, 38.

102 Mcjunkin v. Dupree, 44 Tex. 500. But see Bond v. Coke, 71 N. C. 97.

103 See Elwes v. Maw, 3 East, 38, where an agricultural tenant erected several outbuildings of brick and mortar and let them into the ground, he was not permitted to remove them.

104 Wing v. Gray, 36 Vt 261; Harkness v. Sears, 26 Ala. 493; Dubois Y. Kelly, 10 Barb. 496; Holmes v. Tremper, 20 Jonns. 29.

105 Tyler, Fixt. 271; Perkins v. Swank, 43 Miss. 349; Leland v. Gassett, 17 Vt 403.

1o6 Perry v. Carr, 44 N. H 118; Hill v. De Rocheniont, 48 N. H. 87; Daniels v. Pond, 21 Pick. 367; Middlebrook v. Corwin, 15 Wend. 169. Manure in a heap is personalty, but when scattered upon the ground it becomes part of the realty. Yearworth v. Pierce, Aleyn, 31; Ruckman v. Outwater, 28 N. J. Law, 581; Fay v. Muzzey, 13 Gray, 53; Collier v. Jenks (R. I.) 32 Atl 208. And see Lassell v. Reed, 6 Greenl. (Me.) 222. It has been held that manure may be taken on execution against a tenant at will without incurring liability to the landlord. Staples v. Emery, 7 Greenl. (Me.) 201.

107 Carroll v. Newton, 17 How. Prac. 189; Plumer v. Plumer, 30 N. H. 658; Gallagher v. Shipley, 24 Md. 418. So manure made after the sale of a the freehold to a vendee of the land.108 It cannot be taken on execution against the owner of the fee unless he has made it personal property by being severed.109