119 D'eyncourt v. Gregory, L. R. 3 Eq. 382; Cannon v. Hare, 1 Tenn. Ch. 22; Cave v. Cave, 2 Vera. 508; Lawton v. Salmon, 1 H. Bl. 260, note; Mc-gullough v. Irvine's Ex'rs, 13 Pa. St 438; Gledden v. Bennett, 43 N. H. 306; Demby v. Parse, 53 Ark. 526, 14 S. W. 809; Lord Ellenborough, C. J., in Elwes v. Maw, 3 East, 51. Some erections are, however, held removable. Lawton v. Lawton, 3 Atk. 12; Dudley v. Warde, Amb. 113; Overman v. Sasser, 107 N. C. 432, 12 S. E. 64; Clemence v Steere, 1 R. I. 272. So far as a tenant for life is individually concerned, "his estate lasts forever. It is only terminated by his death. He can have no personal interest in the removal of fixtures at the end of his term. The only interest he can possibly take in the matter is the welfare of his heirs. Whatever addition he makes to the permanent betterment of the estate, he will be permitted to enjoy all his life, and therefore there is the same reason for finding that be intended such betterment to last and continue through his term as there is in case of the owner in fee." Thomp. Fixt. & Easem. 31.

120 White v. Arndt, 1 Whart. 91; Haflick v. Stober, 11 Ohio St. 482; Demby v. Parse, 53 Ark. 526, 14 S. W. 899; Elam v. Parkhill, 60 Tex. 581.

121 Henry's Case, Y. B. 20 Hen. VII. p. 13, pl.. 24; Anon., Y. B. 21 Hen. VII. p. 26, pl. 4; Lawton v. Salmon, 1 H. Bl. 259, note; Fisher v. Dixon. 12 Clark & F. 312; Bain v. Brand, 1 App. Cas. 762: Gibbs v. Estey, 15 Gray (Mass.) 587; Stillman v. Flenniken, 58 Iowa, 450, 10 N. W. 842; Kin-sell v. Billings, 35 Iowa, 154; Mcdavid v. Wood, 5 Heisk. (Tenn.) 95. So of an annexation by a tenant in common. Baldwin v. Breed, 16 Conn. 60. Contra, Squier v. Mayer, Freem. Ch. 249. But see, as to trade fixtures, Mur-dock v. Gifford, 18 N. Y. 28.

122 Noble v. Bosworth, 19 Pick. (Mass.) 314; Tabor v. Robinson, 36 Barb. 483; Voorhees v. Mcginnis, 48 N. Y. 278; Miller v. Plumb, 6 Cow. 665; Leonard v. Clough, 133 N. Y. 292, 31 N. E. 93; Coher v. Kyler, 27 Mo. 122; Hutchins v. Masterson, 46 Tex. 551; Pea v. Pea, 35 Ind. 387. But see Leonard v. Clough, 59 Hun, 627, 14 N. Y. Supp. 339. So one making erections on land which he holds under contract to purchase cannot remove them if he fails to carry out the contract Mclaughlin v. Nash, 14 Allen,

123 See note 123 on following page.

136; Hinkley v. Black, 70 Me. 473; Ogden v. Stock, 34 111. 522; Michigan Mut Life Ins. Co. v. Cronk, 93 Mich. 49, 52 N. W. 1035; Miller v. Wadding-ham (Cal.) 25 Pac. 6Ss; Hemenway v. Cutler, 51 Me. 407.

123 Winslow v. Insurance Co., 4 Mete. (Mass.) 306; Ex parte Astbury, 4 Ch. App. 630; Climie v. Wood, L. R. 4 Exch. 32S; Clary v. Owen, 15 Gray (Mass.) 522; Brennan v. Whitaker, 15 Ohio St. 446; Davenport v. Shants, 43 Vt. 546; Burnside v. Twitchell, 43 N. H. 390; Tifft v. Horton, 53 N. Y. 377; Mcconnell v. Blood, 123 Mass. 47; Rogers v. Brokaw, 25 N. J. Eq. 496; Woodham v. Bank, 48 Minn. 67, 50 N. W. 1015. As to machinery annexed for trade purposes, see Helm v. Gilroy, 20 Or. 517, 26 Pac. 851; Hathaway v. Insurance Co., 58 Hun, 602, 11 N. Y. Supp. 413; Calumet Iron & Steel Co. v. Lathrop, 36 111. App. 249; Phelan v. Boyd (Tex. Sup.) 14 S. W. 290. But for trade fixtures held removable, see Rogers v. Brokaw, 25 N. J. Eq. 496;. Johnson v. Mosher, 82 Iowa, 29, 47 N. W. 996. Cf. Padgett v. Cleveland,. 33 S. C. 339, 11 S. E. 1069. The mortgagee is entitled to fixtures erected after the execution of the mortgage as against an assignee of the mortgagor. Walmsley v. Milne, 7 C. B. (N. S.) 115; Holland v. Hodgson, L. R. 7 C. P. 328; Winslow v. Insurance Co., 4 Mete. (Mass.) 306; Cooper v. Harvey, 62 Hun, 618, 16 N. Y. Supp. 660; Snedeker v. Warring, 12 N. Y. 170; Kloess v. Katt, 40 111. App. 99; Seedhouse v. Broward, 34 Fla. 509, 16 South. 425; Sands v. Pfeiffer, 10 Cal. 258.

124 Jarechi v. Society, 79 Pa. St. 403; Mckeage v. Insurance Co., 81 N. Y. 38; Towne v. Fiske, 127 Mass. 125. Cf., however, Central Trust & Safe Deposit Co. v. Cincinnati Grand Hotel Co., 26 Wkly. Law Bul. 149.

125 Madigan v. Mccarthy, 108 Mass. 376; Inhabitants of First Parish in Sudbury v. Jones, 8 Cush. 184; Huebschmann v. Mchenry, 29 Wis. 655. Otherwise, when the owner consents. Fuller v. Tabor. 39 Me. 519; Gregg v. Railway Co., 48 Mo. App. 494; Merchants' Nat Bank v Stanton (Minn.) 56 N. W. 821. But see Histe v. Buckley, 8 Ohio Cir. Ct R. 470.

126 Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat 1; Hylton v. Brown, 2 Wash. C. C. 165, Fed. Cas. No. 6,983; Jackson v. Loomis, 4 Cow. 168. And see Oregon Railway & Nav. Co. v. Mosier, 14 Or. 519, 13 Pac. 300.

Set out and crops planted by one not the owner.127 It is seen from the foregoing that the presumption of chattel character of a fixture is stronger in the first than in the second class, and in the ml than in the third;128 and consequently cases holding fixtures removable against a mortgagee or vendee in fee are author-y to the same effect against a remainder-man or a lessor, and so in the other classes; and cases holding fixtures irremovable against a lessee are authority for holding them irremovable against any other person.

6. Time Of Removal - Where the tenant's interest is of definite duration, the removal must be before its termination. Where the interest is of indefinite duration, the removal must be within a reasonable time alter its termination.

Where the interest of the one making the annexation is of definite duration, the right to remove fixtures must be exercised before the. termination of that interest or an abandonment of the right will be presumed;129 and in cases of an interest of uncertain duration, the removal must be within a reasonable time after the interest comes to an end.130 These rules do not apply when

127 Simpkins v. Rogers, 15 111. 397; Mitchell v. Billingsley, 17 Ala. 391; Boyer v. Williams, 5 Mo. 335.

128 Van Ness v. Pacard, 2 Pet. 137.

129 Sampson v. Cotton Mills, 64 Fed. 939; White v. Arndt, 1 Whart. (Pa.) 91; Mackintosh v. Trotter, 3 Mees. & W. 184; Gibson v. Railway Co., 32 Law J. Ch. 337; Saint v. Pilley, L. R. 10 Exch. 137; Haflick v. Stober, 11 Ohio St. 482; Friedlander v. Ryder, 30 Neb. 783, 47 N. W. 83; Davis v. Buffum, 51 Me. 160; Josslyn v. Mccabe, 4G Wis. 591, 1 N. W. 174; Thomas v. Crout, 5 Bush (Ky.) 37. Cf. Dubois v. Kelly, 10 Barb. 496. If a lessee mortgages tenant's fixtures, and afterwards surrenders his lease, the mortgagee has a right to enter and sever them. London & Westminster Loan & Discount Co. v. Drake, 6 C. B. (N. S.) 798. See, also, Mckenzie v. City of Lexington, 4 Dana (Ky.) 130.