130 Where a landlord enters on his tenant for breach of condition, and thereby puts an end to the tenancy, the right to remove fixtures is gone. Pugh v. Arton, L. R. 8 Eq. 626; Weeton v. Woodcock, 7 Mees. & W. 14; Ex parte Brook, 10 Ch. Div. 100; Morey v. Hoyt. 62 Conn. 542, 26 Atl. 127. Cf. Dunman v. Railway Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 26 S. W. 304; Antoni v. Belthe removal of the fixtures is wrongfully prevented by injunction or otherwise.131 And a tenant holding over with the consent of the landlord does not lose his right of removal.132 Fixtures wrongfully removed may be recovered by the person entitled to them in the hands of any one 133 not a bona fide purchaser.134

Same - equitable Conversion

7. Equitable conversion is a notional change in the character of property, by means of •which

(a) Personal property is made real and

(b) Real property is made personal.

"Money directed to be employed in the purchase of land,135 and land directed to be sold and turned into money,136 are to be conknap, 102 Mass. 193; Cooper v. Johnson, 143 Mass. 108, 9 N. E. 33; Berger v. Hoerner, 36 111. App. 360; Sullivan v. Carberry, 67 Me. 531; Turner v. Kennedy, 57 Minn. 104, 5S N. W. 823; Martin v. Roe, 7 Bl & Bl. 237.

131 Bircher v. Parker, 40 Mo. 118.

132 Lewis v. Pier Co., 125 N. Y. 341, 26 N. E. 301; Torrey v. Burnett, 38 N. J. Law, 457; Fitzgerald v. Anderson, 81 Wis. 341, 51 N. W. 554; Brown v. Power Co., 55 Fed. 229. Cf. Free v. Stuart, 39 Neb. 220, 57 N. W. 991; Thorn v. Sutherland, 123 N. Y. 236, 25 N. E. 362. But by accepting a new lease, with different terms and covenants, he may lose the right Watriss v. Bank, 124 Mass. 571; Loughran v. Ross, 45 N. Y. 792; Talbot v. Cruger, 81 Hun, 504, 30 N. Y. Supp. 1011; Mclver v. Estabrook, 134 Mass. 550; Wright v. Macdonell (Tex. Ciy. App.) 27 S. W. 1024; Merritt v. Judd, 14 Cal. 60. But see Kerr v. Kingsbury, 39 Mich. 150.

133 Ogden v. Stock, 34 111. 522; Central Branch R. Co. v. Fritz, 20 Kan. 430; Huebschmann v. Mchenry, 29 Wis. 655; Sands v. Pfeiffer, 10 Cal. 259. Cf. Salter v. Sample, 71 111. 430; Hartwell v. Kelly, 117 Mass. 235. But see 2 Jones, Real Prop. § 1760.

134 Peirce v. Goddard, 22 Pick. 559.

135 Kettleby v. Atwood, 1 Vern. 298; on rehearing, Id. 471; Chichester v. Bicherstaff, 2 Vern. 295; Sweetapple v. Bindon, Id. 526; Scudmore v. Scud-more, Prec. Ch. 544; Craig v. Leslie, 3 Wheat. 563: in re Becker's Estate, 150 Pa. St 524, 24 Atl. 687.

136 Fletcher v. Ashburner, 1 Brown, Ch. 497; Steed v. Preece, L. R. 18 Eq. 192; Evans v. Kingsberry, 2 Rand. (Va.) 120; Turner v. Davis, 41 Ark. 270; Fluke v. Fluke, 16 N. J. Eq. 478; Roy v. Monroe, 47 N. J. Eq. 356, 20 sidered as that species of property into which they are directed to be converted; and this in whatever manner the direction is given,-whether by will,137 by way of contract, marriage articles, settlement, or otherwise;138 and whether the money is actually deposited or only covenanted to be paid; whether the land is actually conveyed or only agreed to be conveyed."139 This subject properly belongs however to works on equity.140

There are also certain interests in land which are treated as personal property. For instance, chattels real,141 which are estates less than freehold, or leaseholds.142 Long terms of years are, however, in some states made real property by statute.143 These and other personal interests in land, such as a mortgage debt, will be treated of in other connections. Corporate shares are not real property, even though the property which constitutes the capital of the corporation is realty. The ownership of this realty is in the corporation and not in the individual stockholders. Therefore their interests are personalty only.144

Atl. 481; Crane v. Bolles, 49 N. J. Eq. 373, 24 Atl. 237; In re Blauvelt (Sup.) 15 N. Y. Supp. 586; Fraser v. Trustees, 124 N. Y. 479, 26 N. E. 1034; Bolton v. Myers, 140 N. Y. 257, 40 N. E. 737. But see In re Machemer's Estate, 140 Pa. St. 544, 21 Atl. 441.

137 Fletcher v. Ashburner, 1 Brown, Ch. 497; Craig v. Leslie, 3 Wheat. 563; Jones' Ex'rs v. Jones, 13 N. J. Eq. 236; Hyman v. Devereux, 63 N. C. 624; Magruder v. Peter, 11 Gill & J. 217; Massey v. Modawell, 73 Ala. 421; Dodge v. Williams, 46 Wis. 70, 1 N. W. 92, and 50 N. W. 1103; Gould v. Orphan Asylum, 46 Wis. 106, 50 N. W. 422; Underwood v. Curtis, 127 N. Y. 523, 28 N. E. 585; Davenport v. Kirkland, 156 111. 169, 40 N. E. 304. The direction must be positive. Darlington v. Darlington, 160 Pa. St. 65, 28 Atl. 503; In re Ingersoll's Estate, 167 Pa. St 536, 31 Atl. 858, 859.

138 In re Hirst's Estate, 147 Pa. St. 319, 23 Atl. 455; Dobson's Estate. 11 Phila. 81; Evans v. Kingsberry, 2 Band. (Va.) 120; Masterson v. Pullen, 62 Ala. 145; Turner v. Davis, 41 Ark. 270; Hunter v. Anderson, 152 Pa. St. 386, 25 Atl. 538; Williams v. Haddock, 145 N. Y. 144, 39 N. E. 825.

139 Sewell, J., in Fletcher v. Ashburner, 1 Brown, Ch. 499.

140 Fetter, Eq. p. 67; Bisp. Eq. (4th Ed.) 370; 3 Pom. Eq. (2d Ed.) p. 1765.

141 As to other chattels real, see Schouler, Pers. Prop. (2d Ed.) 23.

142 Keating v. Condon, 68 Pa. St 75; Hellwig v. Bachman, 26 111. App. 165. And see post p. 128.

143 1 Stim. Am. St. Law, § 1300.

144 Bligh v. Brent, 2 Younge & C. Exch. 268; South Western Ry. v. Thoma son, 40 Ga. 408; Arnold v. Ruggles, 1 R. I. 165; Mohawk & H. R. Co. v. Clute, 4 Paige, Ch. 384; Toll Bridge Co. v. Osborn, 85 Conn. 7. But shares in a turnpike company were held realty in Welles v. Cowles, 2 Conn. 567; and in a water company, in Drybutter v. Bartholomew, 2 P. Wms. 127. And see Price v. Price's Heirs, 6 Dana (Ky.) 107; Codman v. Winslow, 10 Mass. 146.