AGRICULTURAL FIXTURES. d<57 



estate of the plaintiff in premises occupied by a tenant of the name of 

 May, by removing some sfaddles, a thrash iiKj-maclii tic, and a granary. 

 Plaintiff had purchased the premises in question I'rom the devisees in 

 trust of one Thomas Cottrell deceased, the father of the defendant, and 

 tliey had been conveyed to the plaintiff by a deed, to which the de- 

 fendant was a party, as one of the devisees. Immediately after the 

 conveyance the plaintiff demised the premises to May, and after such 

 demise the erections in question had been removed from them. The 

 deed which the defendant had executed conveyed the land and q\\ fixtures 

 to the plaintiff in fee, and it appeared that the erections had been put 

 on the land by the defendant's father, who had subsequently become 

 owner in fee, and under whose will the title had come to the defendant. 

 The staddles were erections for the support of a rick : they were stone 

 }jillars mortared into a foundation of brick and mortar, which was let 

 into the earth : stone caps were mortared on to them at the top ; and 

 on these the ricks rested. The thrashing-machine was placed inside 

 one of the barns (the machinery for the horse being on the outside), and 

 there fixed by screws and bolts to four posts which were let into the 

 earth. The granary consisted of a wooden shed tiled over, and rested 

 by its mere weight upon a wooden frame supported by staddles similar 

 to the first-named. Evidence had been given at the trial to show that 

 by the custom of the country an out-going tenant had the right to re- 

 move such things at the expiration of his tenancy, and it was further 

 contended that he was entitled to do so by the general law of the land. 

 This the plaintiff denied, and contended that even if it were so, the lan- 

 guage of the conveyance took away the right. 



A verdict was taken for the plaintiff for c£30, the parties agreeing 

 that the staddles and thrashing-machine should be estimated at <£10, 

 and the granary at £20, and leave was reserved to enter a verdict for 

 the defendant, or reduce the amount of damages. The Court of 

 Queen's Bench held that the defendant being a party to the convey- 

 ance, could not set up any right to remove any of the articles as fixtures 

 removable by an agricultural tenant at the expiration of his term. The 

 land and everything attached to the land passed by the deed, and there 

 was no tenant-right to remove them. The real question therefore was, 

 whether all or any of the articles passed by the conveyance under the 

 words "and all fixtures" ; and it was held that the staddles and the 

 thrashing-machine clearly did, and that as they were really attached to 

 and part of the land, their removal was clearly an injury to the rever- 

 sionary estate, as a removal of so much of the land, so as to make the 

 first count applicable. The question as to the granary was a different 

 one, as it was proved that that was not attached except by its weight 



