Fixture, a word of frequent use, and in regard to which some little confusion exists, because the exact legal definition is precisely opposed to the meaning commonly given to the word. A fixture, in law, is a personal chattel in some way annexed to the realty, but such, or so annexed, that he who put it there may take it away. We apprehend that the common meaning of the word is, a thing so fixed to the realty that it cannot be taken away. That is, an ornament, or utensil, or addition of any kind, is commonly called a fixture, if so affixed to the land (or to the house) that the owner of the land necessarily owns the thing, and it cannot be removed without his permission. Kent uses the word in both senses, but rather inclines to the common meaning; and for convenience, through this article, we shall mean by fixtures things so fastened to the land (or to a house which is fastened to the land) that they cannot be removed against the will of the owner of the land.-The first remark to be made is, that the whole modern law, which permits a great number of things to be attached to the land and thence removed by the occupier without reference to the will of the owner of the land, is in derogation of the common law.

That originally regarded land as almost everything, and personals as of little value; and it was a nearly invariable rule that anything which was once attached or annexed to the land, or made a component part of anything so annexed, became at once the property of the owner of the land. This is certainly not the law now in England or the United States.Whether a thing was a fixture or not, was formerly made to depend almost entirely upon the intention with which it was put up or annexed; and this was gathered from slight indications. Thus, the same thing was a fixture if nailed on that remained personal property if screwed on, because the use of screws, which can be unscrewed, indicated the intention of removing it. Intention still remains a very important test; but another has come to be of almost equal value, viz., the capability of removal without injury to the premises, or the possibility of taking the thing away and restoring the premises to the same order and condition in which they were before it was annexed.-The earliest relaxations from the ancient rule were made in favor of what are sometimes called trade fixtures; by which is meant all those additions which the tenant of a house or land makes for the purpose of carrying on his trade or business.

It cannot now be denied that a very wide power of removal has been allowed to tenants in cases of this kind. To illustrate this by instances: it has been adjudged that a tenant might take away (having put them on the land for purposes of trade or manufacture) furnaces, iron backs to chimneys, grates, pumps, vats, cisterns, coppers, tubs, blinds, verandas, fire engines, steam and gas machinery, or even sheds, shops, and other buildings, and the like, even when these things are built into brick walls or rooms, or set on stone or brick foundations. Indeed, we doubt whether the courts of the United States would now stop short of saying that any implements or instruments of trade may be taken away by an outgoing tenant, if he can remove them and restore the premises substantially to their original condition. Not long after the relaxation in favor of trade, it was admitted by the courts that many things might be taken away by an outgoing tenant which he had put up and fastened to the house, either for mere ornament or for domestic convenience. Under this head are now included a great variety of things, such as mirrors, marble slabs and chimneypieces, window blinds, doors, windows, baths, gas pipes and lights, stoves, fire grates, and ranges.

It is difficult to draw an exact line here, but it must be said that the law is not so liberal in permitting things of ornament or convenience to be removed as things of trade; and the rule is more strictly applied, that the premises are not to be disfigured or injured by the removal. There are certain things about which the adjudication is as yet conflicting, such as trees planted out, conservatories, hothouses, and other structures for gardening. Here we should say that a nurseryman who put these things up for trade might certainly remove them, on the same condition of putting the premises in good order as before. But a mere tenant for occupation, who had put them on the land for his own enjoyment, might be obliged to leave them, although we incline to think that he would be permitted to take them away, leaving, of course, the premises wholly unimpaired by the removal.-The same thing will be a fixture as to some persons, but not as to others. Thus a man who sells a house most certainly sells with it, and therefore cannot take away from the buyer, very many things which an outgoing tenant who put them there may remove when he goes.

Here the law, instead of being liberal, professes to be strict; and the seller would be permitted to claim and sever from the land only those things which were evidently as free from all attachment to it as mere articles of furniture. And if he had fastened any things down, so as to give them the appearance of being a part of the house, it might be doubted whether he would be permitted to remove them. The same strict rule would be applied as between the heir who takes the land and the executor or administrator who takes the personals; and so it would be between lessor and lessee or mortgageor and mortgagee. Indeed, it may be said, in general, that in the matter of fixtures the law is extremely liberal as to the right of outgoing tenants to remove things of trade, and nearly as much so as to the same persons in respect to things of convenience or ornament; but very strict as to any disposition made of the land by the owner of it. In these rules, it is supposed, the law gives effect to the actual intent of the party attaching the article to the land; the owner being supposed to intend it to remain, because at the time he can generally have no interest in having it considered a severable chattel, while the tenant in making a similar annexation may be supposed to have his own interest in view, which could only be subserved by retaining the ownership in himself instead of making the thing annexed a part of the landlord's estate.

The general rule is that a tenant must remove during the term all he has a right to take away; and whatever he does not remove he is considered as having intended as a permanent fixture, though if he removes them before finally surrendering possession it will probably be sufficient, and a tenant at will or other tenant whose lease is determined by the will of the landlord, or by some other event unexpectedly, would be entitled to a reasonable time in which to exercise this right. It is common and very prudent to provide in leases for the removal of articles which the tenant expects to put up and take away.