The owner of a chattel and the owner of land may agree that the annexation of the chattel to the land shall not change the legal character of the chattel or affect its ownership, and such an agreement is generally regarded as valid and effective, at least as between the parties thereto,97 subject to the proviso, according to a number of cases, that the chattel is not so closely incorporated with the realty as substantially to lose its identity, or to be incapable of removal without substantial injury to the freehold or to the article itself.98

332; Feblersen v. Quinn, - Iowa, -, 165 N. W. 213 (semble); Hink-ley & Egery Iron Co. v. Black, 70 Me. 473, 35 Am. Rep. 346; McLaughlin v. Nash, 14 Allen (Mass.) 136, 92 Am. Dec. 741; Westgate v. Wixon, 128 Mass. 304; Michigan Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Cronk, 93 Mich. 49, 52 N. W. 1035; Perkins v. Swank, 43 Miss. 363; McFadden v. Allen, 34 N. Y. 489, 19 L. R. A. 446, 32 N. E. 21; Moore v. Valentine, 77 N. C. 88; Patton v. Moore, 16 W. Va. 428, 37 Am. Rep. 789; Taylor v. Collins 51 Wis. 123, 8 N. W. 22. Compare Gasaway v. Thomas, 56 Wash. 77, 105 Pac. 168.

97. Broaddus v. Smith, 121 Ala. 335, 77 Am. St. Rep. 61, 26 So. 34; Hendy v. Dinkerhoff, 57 Cal. 3; Curtiss v. Hoyt, 19 Conn. 154; Myrick v. Bill, 3 Dak. 284, 17 N. W. 268; Hewitt v. General Electric Co., 164 111. 420, 45 N. E. 725; Binkley v. Forkner, 117 Ind. 176, 3 L. R. A. 33, 19 N. E. 753; Marshall v. Bacheldor, 47 Kan. 442,

28 Pac. 168; Peaks v. Hutchinson, 96 Me. 530, 59 L. R. A. 279, 53 Atl. 38; Hopewell Mills v. Taunton Sav. Bank, 150 Mass. 519, 6 L R. A. 249, 15 Am. St. Rep. 235, 23 N. E. 327; Booth v. Oliver, 67 Mich. 664, 35 N. W. 793; Goodman v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 45 Mo. 33, 100 Am. Dec. 336; Dame v. Dame, 38 N. H. 429, 75 Am Dsc. 195; Mott v. Palmer, 1 N. Y. 564; Tifft v. Horton, 53 N. Y. 377; Mathews v. Hanson, 19 N. Dak. 692, 124 N. W 1116; Sullivan v. Jones, 14 S. C. 362.

While the courts have ordinarily regarded such an agreement as effective to preserve the chattel character as between the parties, it has occasionally been questioned whether it properly does more than to give a right to remove what is legally a part of the realty. See editorial notes, 10 Columbia Law Rev. at p. 581, 26 Harv. Law Rev. 657.

98. Sword v. Low, 122 111. 487, 13 N. E. 826; Binkley v. Forkner,

Sec. 271]

Rights of Enjoyment.

Such an agreement is in effect involved in the execution, by the owner of land, of a chattel mortgage upon articles subsequently annexed by him to the soil, as when a mortgage is given for the purchase price, of the articles.99 It is also involved in or implied from the fact that a sale of chattels is subject to the condition that title shall not pass till payment of the price, they then retaining their chattel character, though annexed by the purchaser to land.1 Likewise, when one annexes chattels to another's land by the latter's license or permission, there is prima facie an agreement that they shall not become part of the land.2

117 Ind. 176, 3 L. R. A. 33, 19 N. E. 753; Eaves v. Estes, 10 Kan. 314, 15 Am. Rep. 345; Campbell v. Roddy, 44 N. J. Eq. 44, 6 Am. St. Rep. 889, 14 Atl. 279; Ford v. Cobb. 20 N. Y. 144; Tifft v. Hor-ton, 53 N. Y. 380, 13 Am. Rep. 537; Fortman v. Goepper, 14 Ohio St. 558; Henkle v. Dillon, 15 Ore. 610, 17 Pac. 148; Boeringa v. Perry, 96 Wash. 57, 164 Pac. 773; Eaves v. Estes, 10 Kan. 314. "A house or other building, which, from its size or the materials of which it was constructed or the manner in which it was fixed to the land, could not be removed without practically destroying it, would not, I conceive, become a mere chattel by means of any agreement which could be made concerning it. So of the separate materials of a building, and things fixed into the wall, so as to be essential to its support." Denio, J., in Ford v. Cobb, supra 99. Miller v. Griffin, 102 Ala. 610, 15 So. 238; Binkley v. Fork-ner, 117 Ind. 176, 3 L. R. A. 33, 19 N. E. 753; Eaves v. Estes, 10 Kan.

314, 15 Am. Rep. 345; Carpenter v. Allen, 150 Mass. 281, 22 N. E. 900; Tibbetts v. Horne, 65 N. H. 242, 15 L. R. A. 56, 23 Am. St. Rep. 31, 23 Atl. 145; Harkey v. Cain, 69 Tex. 146, 6 S. W. 637; Boeringa v. Perry, 96 Wash. 57, 164 Pac. 773.

1. Hunt v. Bay State Iron Co., 97 Mass. 279; Jenks v. Colwell, 66 Mich. 420, 11 Am. St. Rep. 502, 33 N. W. 528; Duke v. Shackle-ford, 56 Miss. 552; Cochran v. Flint, 57 N. H. 514; Case Mfg. Co. v. Garven, 45 Ohio St. 289, 13 N. E. 493; Padgett v. Cleveland, 33 S. C. 330. 11 S. E. 1069; San Antonio Brew. Ass'n v. Arctic Ice Machine Mfg. Co., 81 Tex. 99; Davenport v. Shants, 43 Vt. 346.

2. Wiggins Ferry Co. v. Ohio & M. R. Co., 142 U. S. 396, 35 L. Ed. 1055; Radigan v. Hughes, 86 Conn.

536, 86 Atl. 220; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Goodwin, 111 111. 273, 53 Am. Rep. 622; Fischer v. Johnston. 106 Iowa, 181, 76 N. W. 658; Salley v. Robinson, 96 Me. 474, 90 Am. St. Rep. 410, 52 Atl. 930; Ham v. Kendall, 111 Mass. 297;

The chattel mortgagee, the conditional vendor, or the licensee, as the case may be, is in the position of the owner of a chattel with whom the land-owner has agreed that the annexation of the chattel to the land shall not affect its character or ownership.

- As against third persons. A chattel mortgage, conditional sale or other transaction involving a stipulation that an article, though to be annexed to land, shall retain the character of personalty, is valid and effective as against one to whom the land is conveyed or mortgaged, after the annexation has taken place, if he has notice of such stipulation.3 By the weight of authority, a purchaser or mortgagee of the land without notice of such a stipulation is not bound thereby, being entitled to the thing annexed, as apparently forming part of the land.4 In some states, however,

Merchants Nat. Bank of Crooks-ton v. Stanton, 55 Minn. 211, 43 Am. St. Rep. 491, 56 N. W. 821; Brown v. Baldwin, 121 Mo. 126, 25 S. W. 863; King v. Morris, 74 N. J. L. 810, 14 L. R. A. 439, 68 Atl. 162; Western North Carolina R. Co. v. Deal, 90 N. C. 110.