296 STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE 



•which the subject has been viewed with reference to the relation existing 

 among the parties between whom the question has arisen — the degree of 

 annexation to the realty — the purpose for and tJie intention with which such 

 annexation was made, the question whether the thing can be removed or not 

 "without injuring the land. The term "fixtures," however, seems generally 

 to have been used with reference to articles which in and of themselves, and 

 irrespective of the manner in which they are fixed to the realty, whether real 

 or constructive, are of a chattel nature, and which have been actually or con- 

 structively affixed either to the soil itself or to some structure legally constitu- 

 ting a part of the land. 



Judge Campbell, of the Michigan Supreme Court, in delivering the opinion 

 of the Court in the case of Wheeler vs. Bedell said : "There is no universal 

 test whereby the character of what is claimed to be a fixture can be determined 

 in the abstract. Neither the mode of annexation nor the manner of use is in 

 all cases conclusive. It must usually depend on the express or implied under- 

 standing of the parties concerned." 



What we understand by actual annexation to the land is when the article is 

 fastened, fixed, or set into the land, or into some such erection as is unques- 

 tionably a part of the realty. Fence posts set in the ground, fences laid up, 

 locks, iron stoves set in the brick work, window blinds, gates, doors, afford 

 examples of actual fixtures. There are some articles which are considered as 

 constructively fixed to the land. For instance, it has been held that manure 

 made on the farm in the ordinary course of husbandry, lying in heaps about 

 the barn, is a part of the land, and the seller must not take it away. 



An Irishman, having sold his farm, carried away the manure from around 

 his stable. The purchaser of the farm sued him for its value, claiming it as a 

 part of the land. The court having rendered judgment against the Irishman, 

 he inquired, "Your Honor, may I ax you a question?" "Yes," said the 

 court. " Is my mule personal property?" "Yes." " Is my hay and corn 

 personal property?" "Yes." "Then I would like to have your Honor 

 explain how personal property can eat personal property and produce real 

 estate." 



The true criterion of an irremovable article consists in the united applica- 

 tion of several tests : 1st, Keal or constructive annexation of the article in 

 question to the realty; 2d, its appropriation or adaptation to the use or purpose 

 of the land with which it is connected ; and 3d, the intent of the party in put- 

 ting it on the laud to make the article a permaneot accession to the freehold ; 

 this intention being inferred from the nature of the article, the relation and 

 situation of the party placing it there and the policy of the law in relation 

 thereto, the structure and mode of the annexation, and the purpose or use for 

 which it was put there. Whether an article is a fixture or not, and passes with 

 the land as between the seller and purchaser, depends in a great degree upon 

 the facts of each case, and what ought in fairness and honesty to be implied. 

 I should say that fence posts corded up, patent fence not in use, and cord-wood 

 were personal property, and might be removed by the seller. But stones piled 

 up, if they were taken from the land, and were piled up for more convenient 

 husbandry, would pass with the land, and the seller would have no right to 

 remove them. In one case it was held that when the miller had taken a stone 

 out of the mill to pick it in order to make it grind better, although it was sev- 

 ered from the mill, yet it remained part and parcel of the mill, and passed 

 with it. 



As I have said, it is easier to furnish examples than give an accurate 



