SAWMILLS AS FIXTURES 267 



lord after the severance of the fixtures. Some courts have 

 held that the execution of a chattel mortgage on a fixture 

 effects a constructive severance and makes the subject mat- 

 ter of the mortgage personalty, l but in other jurisdictions 

 such a severance will not be effective as against a purchaser 

 of the land. 2 and a parol reservation of a fixture is generally 

 held inoperative either on the ground that the parol evi- 

 dence is inadmissible to prove the reservation 3 or on the 

 ground that the fixtures are realty and thus within the 

 statute of frauds. 4 Ordinarily fixtures are not considered 

 an interest in land of such character as to require a writing 

 for their transfer, except as between a grantor and grantee 

 of the realty to which the fixtures are annexed. 5 Fixtures 

 may of course be constructively severed by a writing which 

 conforms to the requirements of a conveyance of realty in 

 that jurisdiction, 6 or by an express ecxeption in a deed of 

 the land. 7 The giving of a bill of sale, or a chattel mort- 

 gage, on articles annexed at the time of the execution and 

 delivery of a mortgage on realty has been held to show an 

 intention by the parties to the mortgage that the annexed 

 articles were to be considered personalty and not subject to 

 the realty mortgage. 8 



Chattels so annexed by the owner of land as to be ordinari- 

 ly considered a part of the land cannot be attached as goods 

 and chattels under a judgment against the land owner; 9 

 but in an execution against a tenant all fixtures which are 

 removable by him may be levied upon as goods and chat- 

 tels. 10 



1. Manwaring v. Jenison 61 Mich. 117, 27 N. W. 899. 



2. Madigan v. McCarthy 108 Mass. 376, 11 Am. Rep. 371; Burk v. Hollis 98 Mass. 



55; Gibbs v. Estey 15 Gray 587; ex p. Ames. 1 Fed. Cas. No. 323, 1 Lowell 

 561 ; Fenlason v. Rackloff 50 Me. 362. But see Fuller v. Tabor 39 Me. 519. 



3. Smith v. Price 39 111. 29. 



4. Home v. Smith 105 N. C. 323, 18 Am. St. Rep. 903. 



5. Curtis v. Riddle 7 Allen (Mass.) 185; 1 Wm. Saunders 277; Amos & Ferard Fix- 



tures, 253; Ewell's Fixtures, 343; Tyler's Fixtures, 730; Bronson, Fixtures, 266. 



6. Johnston v. Phila. Mort. Etc. Co. 129 Ala. 515, 30 So. 15. 87 Am. St. Rep. 75. 



7. Badger v. Batavia Paper Mfg. Co. 70 111. 302; Straw v. Straw 70 Vt. 240, 39 Atl. 



1095. 



8. cf. Burrill v. Wilcox Lumber Co. 65 Mich. 571. 



9. Green v. Phillips 26 Grat. (Va.) 752 (Machinery in wood working factory). 



Krueger v. Pierce 37 Wise. 269 (Lumber, Etc. piled on land for repair purposes.) 

 cf. Homestead Land Co. v. Becker 96 Wis. 210, and Studley v. Ann Arbor 

 Sav. Bank 112 Mich. 181, 70 N. W. 426. 

 10. Poole's case 1 Salk. 368. 



