A consideration on which the cases usually lay great stress, in determining the character of the article as a fixture vel non, is its character, as related to the uses to which the land has been appropriated, it being regarded as a fixture only in case there is a correspondence between its character, and consequently its prospective use, and the use to which the land is devoted. This idea of correspondence between the use of the article and that of the land, at least capable of use,79 in furtherance of the purpose for which the land is used. The practical efficiency, of such a criterion of a fixture may well be questioned. It would but rarely occur that an article attached to land is used otherwise than in furtherance of the purpose for which the land is used. A distinction has however occasionally been asserted, in this connection, between the use to which the land is devoted by the construction of a building of a particular character, and the use to which the building itself is at the time devoted, with the result that when machinery in a factory building was adapted to but one class of manufactures, while the building might be used for others as well, the machinery was not regarded as appropriated or adapted to the use to which the land was devoted, so as to be a part of the land.80

1157; Noble v. Sylvester, 42 Vt 146; Hackett v. Arnsden, 57 Vt. 432; Patton v. Moo-re, 16 W. Va. 428. 37 Am. Rep. 789; McFadden v. Crawford, 36 W. Va. 671, 32 Am. St. Rep. 894, 15 S. E. 408; Spru-hen v. Stout, 52 Wis. 517, 9 N. W. 277.

74. Wiltshear v. Cottrell, 1 El. & Bl. 674; Bliss v. Whitney, 91 Mass. (9 Allen) 114, 85 Am. Dec. 745; Degraffenreid v. Scruggs, 23 Tenn (4 Humph.) 451, 40 Am. Dec. 658; Clark v. Hill, 117 N. C. 11, 53 Am. St. Rep 514, 23 S. E. 91; Zimmerman v. Bosse, CO Wash. 556, 111 Pac. 796. See Amos & Fer-ard, Fixtures (3d Ed.) 3 et seq.

75. Ochs v. Tilton, 181 Ind. 81, sions are in result opposed thereto. In apparent accord with this distinction, however, are the not infrequent decisions that machines attached to the realty merely to steady them, or for convenience in use, are not necessarily a part thereof.83

103 N. E. 837; Farrar v. Stack-pole, 6 Me. 154, 19 Am. Dec. 201; Winslow v. Merchants Ins. Co., 4 Mete. (Muss.) 314, 38 Am. Dec. 368; Manwaring v. Jenison, 61 Mich. 117, 27 N. W. 8S9; State Sav. Bank v. Kercheval, 65 Mo. 687, 27 Am. Rep. 310; Despatch Line v Bellamy Mfg. Co., 12 N. H. 205, 37 Am. Dec. 203; McRea v. Central Nat; Bank, 66 N. Y. 495; Maxson v. Ashland Iron Works, 85 Ore. 345, 166 Pac. 37; Voorhis v. Freeman, 2 Watts & S. (Pa.) 116, 37 Am. Dec. 490.

76. Ottumwa Woolen Mill Co. v. Hawley, 44 Iowa, 57, 24 Am. Rep. 719; Ward v. Kilpatrick, 85 as showing the annexor's intention, is presented in the cases under various names. In a very considerable number of cases it is said that in order that an article may become part of the realty there must be appropriation or adaption to the use to which that part of the realty with which it is connected is devoted.77 Occasionally it is said that there must be application to such use.78 These expressions "appropriation," "adaptation," and "application," presumably all mean the same in this connection, and the purport of the statement seems to be that the article must be used, or

N. Y. 413, 39 Am. Rep. 674; Horne v. Smith. 105 N. C. 322, 18 Am. St. Rep. 903, 11 S. E. 373.

77. Choate v. Kimball, 56 Ark. 55; Binkley v. Forkner, 117 Ind. 176, 3 L. R. A. 33, 19 N. E. 753; Johnson v. Wiseman, 4 Mete. (Ky.) 361 (adaptation); Tolles v. Win-ton, 63 Conn. 440, 28 Atl. 542; (adaptation); Kastner v. Day, 65 111. App. 623; Pierce v. George, 108 Mass. 78, 11 Am. Rep. 310 (adapted to the purpose); Smith v. Blake, 96 Mich. 542; Oliver v. Lansing, 59 Neb. 219, 80 N. W. 829 (appropriation); Teaff v. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511, 59 Am. Dec. 634; Helm v. Gilroy, 20 Ore. 517; Snuffer v. Spangler, 79 W. Va. 628, 92 S. E. 106; Walker v. Grand Rapids Flouring Mill Co., 70 Wis. 92, 35 N. W. 332; (application or adaptation).

Occasionally the "special" adaptation of the article to the use or purpose is referred to. Hill v. Mundy, 89 Ky. 36, 4 L. R. A 674, 11 S. W. 956; McLaughlin v. Nash, 14 Allen (Mass.) 136. 92 Am. Dec. 741; Lyle v. Palmer, 42 Mich. 314, 3 N. W. 921; Owings v. Estes, 256 111. 553, 100 N. E 205. But it may be questioned whether "special" has any particular force in this connection.

78. Hacker v. Munroe, 176 111. 384, F2 N. E. 12; Thomson v. Smith, 111 Iowa, 718, 20 L. R. A. 780, 82 Am. St. Rep. 541, S3 N. W. 789; Potter v. Cromwell, 40 N. V 287, 100 Am. Dec. 485; McRea v. Central Nat. Bk. 66 N. Y. 489; Henkle v. Dillon, 15 Ore. 610; Gasaway v. Thomas, 56 Wash. 77, 105 Pac. 168; Gunderson v. Swarthout, 104 Wis. 186, 76 Am. St. Rep. 860, 8 N. W. 465; (application or adaptation); In New Jersey it has been said that the article must have been applied to the use to which the land is devoted. Speiden v. Parker, 46 N. J. Eq. 292, 19 Atl. 21; Feder v. Van Winkle, 53 N. J. Eq. 370, 51 Am. St. Rep. 628, 33 Atl. 399; and also that it is a fixture if placed in or annexed as a part of the means to carry out the purposes for which the building was erected and to which it has been adapted, and with the intention of permanently increasR. P.-58.

The same idea of correspondence between the article and the character of the use to which the land is devoted is involved in the occasional statement that the necessity of the article in connection with the ing its value for the use to which it is devoted. Knickerbocker Trust Co. v. Penn Cordage Co., 66 N. J. Eq. 305, 58 Atl 409.

79. In Hutchins v. Masterson. 46 Tex. 551. 26 Am. Rep. 286; Jones v. Bull, 85 Tex. 136, 19 S. W. 1031, it is said that the question whether there is fitness or adaption is important. In Bren-nan v. Whitaker, 15 Ohio St. 446, appropriateness is the expression used, while in Roderick v. Sanborn, 106 Me. 159, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1189, 20 Ann. Cas. 469, 70 Atl. 263 and Feder v. Van Winkle, 53 N. J. Eq. 370, 51 Am. St. Rep. 628, 33 Atl. 399, that the article was "adapted to the" particular use made of the premises is referred to In Central Branch

R. Co. v. Fritz, 20 Kan. 430; Blanchard v. Eureka Plaining Mill Co., 58 Ore. 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 133, 113 Pac. 55, the expression "adaptability" is used.

80. Hawkins v. Hersey, 86 Me. 394, 30 Atl. 14; McConnell v. Blood, 123 Mass. 47, 25 Am. Rep. 12; American Laundry Mach. Co v. Citizens Nat. Life Ins. Co., 107 Miss. 108, 65 So. 113; Fortman v. Goepper, 14 Ohio St. 558; Chase v. Tacoma Box Factory Co., 11 Wash. 377, 39 Pac. 639.

Aliter when the building was erected for the purpose for which the machinery was installed. Fifield v. Farmers' Nat. Bank, 148 111. 163, 39 Am. St. Rep. 166, 35 N. E. 802; International Trust Co particular use of the land is a consideration indicating that it is to be regarded as part of the land.81

In a few cases the fact that the article annexed is such that it may well he removed and utilized elsewhere has been referred to as tending to show that it retains its chattel character.82 Such a criterion seems a sensible one, and it harmonizes with the view that the intention of the annexor is the primary consideration. One might be presumed not to intend to make an article a part of the land by annexation if the utility of the particular article is not confined to that particular land. The cases generally, however, recognize no such criterion, and many of the deciv. Palisade etc. Co., 60 Colo. 397, I5S Pac. 1002; Roddy v. Brick, 42 N. J. Eq. 218, 6 At!. 806; Teaff v. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511, 59 Am. Dec. 634; Case Mfg. Co. v. Gar-ven, 45 Ohio St. 289, 13 N. E. 493; Parsons v. Copeland, 38 Me. 537, Southbridge Sav. Bank v. Exeter Machine Works, 127 Mass. 542.

81. Fratt v. Whittier, 58 Cal. 126, 41 Am. Rep. 257; Stillman v. Flenniken, 58 Iowa, 450, 43 Am. Rep. 320; Farrar v. Stackpole, 6 Me. 158, 19 Am. Dec. 201; Sym-onds v. Harris, 51 Me. 14, 81 Am. Dec. 553; Southbridge Sav. Bank v. Exeter Machine Works, 27 Mass. 542; Despatch Line v. Bellamy Mfg. Co., 12 N. H. 205, 232, 37 Am. Dec. 203; Burnside v. Twitchell, 43 N. H. 390; Quinby v. Manhattan Cloth & Paper Co., 24 N. J. Eq. 260; Helm v. Gilroy, 20 Ore. 517, 26 Pac. 851; Gray v. Holdship, 17 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 413; Christian v. Dripps, 28 Pa. 271; Padgett v. Cleveland, 33 S. C. 347; Green v. Phillips, 26 Gratt. (Va.) 752, 21 Am. Rep. 323; Hack-ett v. Amsden, 57 Vt. 432; Patton v. Moore, 16 W. Va. 428, 37 Am. Rep. 789; Murray v. Bender, 125 Fed. 705, 60 C. C. A. 473, 63 L. R. A. 783; Lawton v. Salmon, 1 H. Bl. 259, note a.

That the machinery and building together formed a unit for the prosecution of a common purpose was said to show it to be a fixture. Chancellor of State of New Jersey v. Cruse, 83 N. J. Eq. 232, 90 Atl. 673; Bannerot v. Bannerot, 238 Pa. 606, 86 Atl 489; International Trust Co. v. Palisade Light, Heat & Power Co., 60 Colo. 397, 153 Pac. 1002.

82. Maguire v. Park, 140 Mass. 21, 1 N. E. 750; Hubbell v. East Cambridge Five Cent Savings Bank, 132 Mass. 447, 42 Am. Rep. 446; Stone v. Livingston, 222 Mass. 192, 110 N. E. 297; Robertson v. Corsett, 39 Mich 777; Ferris v. Quimby, 41 Mich. 202; Cherry v. Arthur, 5 Wash. 787, 32 Pac. 744; Chase v. Tacoma Box Factory Co., 11 Wash. 377, 39 Pac 639.