458 LARGER MEANING OF FIXTURES. 



to the stiiddlcs, and that by sufficient power it might have been lifted 

 from tlie staddles without disturbing; them. Hence it was decided that 

 the granary was a mere chattel, and would not be a fixture in the ordi- 

 nary sense of the word, though it might pass by that word, if from the 

 rest of the conveyance an intention appeared of comprehending farm 

 machinery in general ; but that even then the plaintiff could not recover 

 against the defendant for carrying it away, either as for an injury to 

 the reversion in land, the chattel not being part of such reversion, or, 

 according to Gordon v. Harper, in trover (the second count), as the pos- 

 session of the chattels for the term was in May, the tenant at the 

 time of removal. The Court, however, intimated that, considering 

 this article was put up so long ago by a party who became owner of 

 the freehold, it seemed to have been always demised with the freehold, 

 ;uul remembering the larger meaning of which Baron Parlce had shown 

 the word "fixtures" to be capable, they might have held that it 

 passed as a chattel, if either count could have been BU}>ported on that 

 supposition. 



TJie "■larger mean'mcf was given to fixtures by Porlce B. in Sheen v. 

 Reekie, where he says, "It does not necessarily follow that the word 

 * fixtures ' must import things affixed to the freehold, nor has the word 

 necessarily acquired that legal sense. It is a very modern word, and 

 is generally understood to comprehend any article which a tenant has 

 the power of removing, as appears fi-om the case of Colegrave v. Dios 

 Santos; but even this is not its necessary meaning; it only means 

 something fixed to another ; and every article in this declaration (stores, 

 shelves, closets, cupboards, &c.) may be a purely movable chattel, and 

 the fit subject for an action of trover. For instance, they might be 

 affixed to a bam, or other structure so supported, as that it might itself 

 be the subject of this form of action." Coleridge J., in delivering the 

 judgment of the Court in Wilts/tear v. Cottrcll, thus summed up the 

 authorities on which a granary of this description was considered a mere 

 chattel, and neither as a part of the land, or so affixed to the freehold as 

 that its severance would give a cause of action for injury to the rever- 

 sionary estate in the land, the subject of the first count : " In Gutting 

 V. Tiiffnal, a lam ncrted on pattens and btoclrs of wood, but not itself 

 fixed in or to the ground, was held to be removable. The custom of the 

 country was relied on in that case, as making such erections removable 

 by an outgoing tenant; but Lord Ettentiorough, in the great case of 

 L'twes V. 31au\ in referring to Gnlting v. Tuffnat, treats tlie barn as 

 liaving been clearly removable without any custom, because it was not 

 a fixture at all, as not being fixed in or to the ground. In Wanshrough 

 V. Maton it was decided that a barn resting by its mere weight on a 



