Same - Domestic Fixtures. Certain annexations may be removed as domestic fixtures, which comprise such things as stoves,110 wash tubs fastened to the house,111 gas fixtures,112 chimney-pieces,113 marble shelves,114 and sheds.115 In the annexation of domestic fixtures, it is held that there is a stronger presumption of an intention to make them permanent additions to the realty than with either trade or agricultural fixtures, and consequently less freedom of removal.116 farm, where the vendor retains possession during the winter, but carries on no farming operations, may be sold by him. Needham v. Allison, 24 N. H. 805. But see Lassell v. Reed, 6 Greenl. (Me.) 222. Of. Lewis v. Jones, 17 Pa. St. 262.
108 Goodrich v. Jones, 2 Hill (N. T.) 142; Daniels v. Pond, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 367; Kittredge v. Woods, 3 N. H. 503. Contra, Ruckman v. Outwater, 28 X. J. Law, 581. It may be reserved by a separate agreement. Strong v. Doyle, 110 Mass. 92.
109 Sawyer v. Twiss, 26 N. H. 345.
110 Towne v. Fiske, 127 Mass. 125; Gaffield v. Hapgood, 17 Pick. 192. Grates. Aldine Manuf'g Co. v. Barnard, 84 Mich. 632, 48 N. W. 280; Gaffleld v. Hapgood, 17 Pick. 192. And steam valves and radiators. National Bank v. North, 160 Pa. St. 303, 28 Atl. 694.
111 Wall v. Hinds, 4 Gray, 256. See, also, Kirchman v. Lapp (Super. Ct.) 19 N. Y. Supp. 831.
112 Vaughen v. Haldeman, 33 Pa. St 522; Kirchman v. Lapp (Super. Ct) 19 N. Y. Supp. 831; Manning v. Ogden, 70 Hun, 399, 24 N. Y. Supp. 70. Contra, Johnson's Ex'r v. Wiseman's Ex'r, 4 Metc. (Ky.) 357.
113 Winn v. Ingilby, 5 Barn. & Ald. 625. But see Spinney v. Barbe, 43 111. App. 585. So pictures and glasses put up instead of wainscot were given to the heir. Cave v. Cave, 2 Vern. 508. And see D'eyncourt v. Gregory, L. R. 8 Eq. 382; Cahn v. Hewsey, 8 Misc. Rep. 384, 29 N. Y. Supp. 1107.
114 Weston v. Weston, 102 Mass. 514. And see Sweet v. Myers, 3 S. D. 824, 53 N. W. 187.
115 Krouse v. Ross, 1 Craneh, C. C. 368, Fed. Cas. No. 7,940.
116 See Buckland v. Butterfleld, 2 Brod. & B. 54 (where a conservatory and pinery, erected for ornament and attached to the dwelling house, were hold part of the realty); Jenkins v. Gething, 2 Johns. & H. 520; State v. Elliot, 11 N. H. 540. But in Grymes v. Boweren, 6 Bing. 437, a tenant was permitted to remove a pump erected for domestic use, though quite firmly annexed to the freehold.
The most important consideration of all in determining the probable intention with which an annexation is made is the relation of the person making the annexation to the land and the duration of his interest in it. The parties between whom the question arises may be put into three classes, as follows: (1) Lessor against lessee;
(2) reversioner or remainder-man against tenant for life or in tail;
(3) heir against personal representative of an owner in fee simple, vendee against vendor, and mortgagee against mortgagor. Any other persons between whom the question arises may easily be shown to stand in the same relation to each other as those in one of these three classes.117 It is obvious that one having only a short term of years in certain land will be less likely to make erections thereon with the intention of having them become permanent than if his interest was that of an owner in fee simple. Therefore a tenant is accorded considerable freedom in removing fixtures, and the tendency of the modern cases seems to be towards a greater liberality in his favor, because the presumption is very strong that he made the annexation in order to secure more complete enjoyment during his term, and not with the intention of benefiting his landlord.118 Persons having life estates are in many cases tenants in dower or by curtesy, and therefore often closely related to the one entitled to the next estate. It is accordingly not diffi117 For other relations, equivalent to the first class, see Raymond v. White, 7 Cow. 819; Heffner v. Lewis, 73 Pa. St. 302; Havens v. Electric Light Co. (Sup.) 17 N. Y. Supp. 580. And for others, equivalent to the third class, see Parsons v. Copeland, 38 Me. 537; Bigler v. Bank, 26 Hun, 520; Cresson v. Stout, 17 Johns. 116; Gale v. Ward, 14 Mass. 352; Farrar v. Chauffetete, 5 Denio (N. Y.) 527; Goddard v. Chase, 7 Mass. 432; Tudor Iron Works T. Hitt, 49 Mo. App. 472.
118 Youngblood v. Eubank, 68 Ga. 630; Thomas v. Crout, 5 Bush (Ky.) 37; Ambs v. Hill, 10 Mo. App. 108; Osgood v. Howard, 6 Greenl. (Me.) 452. Cf. Deane v. Hutchinson, 40 N. J. Eq. 83, 2 Atl. 292. For cases of trade fixtures, see Raymond v. White, 7 Cow. 319; Andrews v. Button Co., 132 N. Y. 348, 30 N. E. 831; Conrad v. Mining Co., 54 Mich. 249, 20 N. W. 39; Hayes v. Mining Co., 2 Colo. 273; Powell v. Bergner, 47 111. App. 33; Berger v. Hoerner, 36 111. App. 360; Lang v. Cox, 40 Ind. 142; Western N. C. Ry. Co. v. Deal, 90 N. C. 110; Cubbins v. Ayres, 4 Lea (Tenn.) 329; Brown v. Power Co., 55 Fed. 229. Domestic fixtures. Jenkins v. Gething, 2 Johns. & H. 520; Garfield v. Hapgood, 17 Pick. 192.
Cult to suppose an intention to make permanent annexations for the benefit of the estate.119 And the same reasons hold good in the case of a tenant in tail. The assignees of life tenants and of tenants in tail are in the same situation, and are therefore accorded no greater freedom in removing fixtures.120 On the same principle, when a question of fixtures arises between the heir and personal representative of an owner in fee, the presumptions are all in favor of the former,121 and the same is true between vendee and vendor,122 or mortgagee and mortgagor,123 because a tenant in fee is not likely to make annexations with any intention of removing them, but rather for the benefit of his property. It is not true, however, that all chattels pass with the realty, although annexed by one owning the fee. For instance, carpets, pictures, and gas fixtures retain their character as personal property.124 When chattels are annexed to the realty by a stranger without authority they become the property of the owner of the soil.125 But, if put there in good faith, the enhanced value of the land may be set off in an action for rent.126 The same rules apply to trees