266 TREES AND EQUIPMENT AS FIXTURES 



out, is personalty. l However, machines such as a shingle 

 machine or a planer, closely integrated with a stationary 

 mill 2 or detachable appliances such as circular saws when 

 attached to the machinery are held to be a part of the 

 realty. 3 



While annexed, fixtures are subject to the general rules 

 regarding trespass upon realty. Since the plaintiff must 

 have possession to maintain the action quare clausam fregit, 

 this action cannot be brought by a landlord either against 

 the tenant of the premises or against a trespasser during the 

 tenancy. Trees or other tangible things when severed from 

 the realty become personalty, but if they are accidentally or 

 wrongfully severed they remain the property of the owner 

 of the realty and he may bring an action of de bonis asportatis 

 against the tenant or a stranger who appropriates them. 

 Although a tenant can bring trespass quare clausam fregit 

 for any injury to the fixtures while annexed, it would seem 

 that he could not bring de bonis asportatis against the land- 



1. Tillman v. DeLacy, 80 Ala. 103 (Farm engine, mortgage); Empire Lbr. Co. v. 

 Kiser, 91 Ga. 643, 17 S. E. 972 (Sawmill under statute giving lien thereon for 

 supplies.) Taylor v. Watkins, 62 Ind. 511 (Sawmill, realty mortgage.) Lans- 

 ing Iron & Engine Works v. Walker, 91 Mich. 409 (Sawmill, engine bricked in, 

 yet personalty.) Brown v. Little, 6 N. W. 244 (Sawmill on timber); Crane v. 

 Brigham, 11 N. J. Eq. 29 (Water power sawmill, engine added in dry year; 

 personalty.) Randolph v. Gwynne, 7 N. J. Eq. 88 (Engine in water power paper 

 mill, personalty.) Farrar v. Cauffetete, 5 Denio (N. Y^) 527 (Machinery on 

 leased land, personalty). Hershberger v. Johnson (Ore,) 60 Pac. 838 (Saw- 

 mill set under lease, recited to be personalty). Vail v. Weaver, 132 Pa. 363, 

 19 Am. St. Rep. 598 (Electric light plant, personalty.) Hughes v. Edisto Cy- 

 press Shingle Co., 51 S. C. 1, 28 S. E. 2 (Sawmill set under lease to cut timber 

 there.) Padgett v. Cleveland, 33 S. C. 339 (Sash and door mfr., engine not 

 realty.) But see Potter v. Cromwell, 40 N. Y. 287, 100 Am. Dec. 485 (Grist 

 mill realty.) Kile v. Giebner, 114 Pa. 381, 7 Atl. 154 (Sawmill realty.) Tunis 

 Lbr. Co. v. Dennis Lbr. Co., 97 Va. 682, 34 S. E. 613 (Dry kiln erected as re- 

 quired by lease held realty). See Alexander v. Beekman Lbr. Co., 78 Ark. 

 169, 172; 95 S. W. 449. State v. Livermore, 44 N. H., 386 (Word "sawmill" 

 does not necessarily imply a building). DeLoach Mill Mfg. Co. v. Bonner 

 (Ark.) 43 S.W. 504. (Warranty of mill did not authorize damages for loss on 

 logs delivered to site, too remote and not contemplated.) 



2. Corliss v. McLagin 29 Me. 115; Trull v. Fuller 28 Me. 545. But see Wells v. 



Maples 15 Hun (N. Y.) 90; State v. Goodnow, 80 Mo. 271. 



3. Burnside v. Twitchell 43 N. H. 395; Bigler v. New York Cent. Ins. Co. 20 Barb. 



- (N. Y.) 635; Clark v. Hill 117 N. C. 11; Breman v. Whitaker 15 Ohio State 446; 

 Newhall v. Kinney 56 Vt. 591; State v. Avery 44 Vt. 629; Wash. Nafl Bank of 

 Seattle v. Smith 15 Wash. 160. cf. Alexander v. Beekman Lbr. Co. 70 Ark. 

 169, 95 S. W. 449 (covering shed not part of sawmill) Liberty County Land 

 Etc. Co. v. Barnes 77 Ga. 752, 1 S. E. 378 (goods in commissary store not 

 part of mill.) See also Graham v. Magann Fawke Lbr. Co. 118 Ky. 192, 80 

 S. W. 799, 26 Ky. L. Rep. 7O; Bogard v. Tyler 55 S. W. 709. 21 Ky. L. Rep. 

 1452; Frost's Detroit Lbr. Etc. Works v. Miller's Mut. Ins. Co. 37 Minn. 3OO, 

 34 N. W. 35, 5 Am. St. Rep. 846, Dexter v. Sparkman 2 Wash. 165; 25 Prc. 

 1070; In re Gosch 121 Fed. 604. See State v. Wilbert's Sons Lbr. & Shingle 

 Co. 26 So. 1O6. 



