LEADING CASE ON FIXTURES. 455 



state as when he entered upon them. These erections were necessary 

 and convenient for the occvpaiion of the farm, "which could not -well be 

 managed without them. A verdict was found for the jDlaintiif for £60, 

 and the question submitted to the Court of King's Bench was whether 

 the defendant had a right to take away these erections. The defendant 

 relied on the cases of Dean v. AllaJley, where the tenant was held 

 entitled to remove Dutch barns ; Lord DucUey v. Lord Ward ; Penton 

 Y.RoMrt; Lawton v. Laivton ; Ciiltiny v. Tuffnal (where the barn's 

 weight sank it into the ground, though the foundations were not dug) ; 

 and Gould J.'s opinion in Fitzherherf v. Shaw, as to what would have 

 been the right of the tenant as to the taking away a shed luilt on hrick- 

 worlc, and some posts and rails which he had erected, if he had done so 

 during the term. The Court of King's Bench confirmed the finding of 

 the jury, and decided that the defendant had no right to remove these 

 erections. Lord Eltenhorovyh C.J. said : " The general rule in the 

 first-mentioned case on the subject, as between heir and executor (Year 

 Book, 17 Edw. II. p. 518, and Co. Litt. 53, Cooke v. Humphrey, &c.) is 

 that where a lessee having annexed anything to the freehold during his 

 term, afterwards takes it away, it is waste. This rule at a very early 

 period had several exceptions attempted to be, and at last effectually, 

 engrafted upon it, in favour of trade, and those vessels and utensils 

 which are immediately subservient to the purposes of trade. But no 

 adjudged case has yet gone the length of estabhshing that buildings 

 subservient to the purposes of agriculture, as distinguished from those 

 of trade, have been removable by an executor of the tenant for life, nor 

 by the tenant himself who built them during his term." 



In Culliny v. Tujfncd, decided by Lord Ch. J. Trehy at Nisi Prius, 

 the ham ivas only battens and blocks of timber, lying upon the ground, but 

 not fixed in or to the ground, and the tenant therefore, without even any 

 custom of the country, had a right to remove them. 



In Wansbroitgh v. Maton the plaintiffs held some land as tenants 

 to the defendant, for a term of years determinable on lives. On the 

 expiration of the last life the plaintiffs quitted possession, and the 

 defendant demised the land to a new tenant, who entered. When the 

 plaintiffs quitted they left on the land a stavel barn which they had 

 erected, and for which the action was brought. It consisted of wood 

 resting on, but not fastened by mortar or otherwise, to the caps or 

 blocks of stone (called stavels or staddles) fixed into the ground or let 

 into brickwork, the brickwork being built on and let into the ground 

 in those parts where tlie ground was lowest, for the purpose of making 

 an even foundation for the barn to rest upon. The wooden barn could 

 be taken away without injury to the rest. It is usual, in the part of the 



