REMOVAL OF TIMBER CATTLE-HOUSE. 459 



brick foundation was not a fixture, but a mere chattel, for which trover 

 might be brought. Mr. Justice Paftcson referred to that case in Rex 

 V. Otlei/, where it was held that a ivindmill resting lij mere tveigJd on 

 a foundation of hrick was not a part of the freehold so as to contribute 

 to the value of the tenement ; and in Rex v. Londonthorpe it was held 

 that a windmill not attached to the ground, but constructed on cross 

 traces laid upon brick pillars, but not attached or fixed thereto, was a 

 mere chattel." 



If a landlord supjilies timher to erect a luilding, and the tenant so uses 

 the timber together with some ivhich he has himself supplied, he cannot 

 remove the building on quitting the occupation of the land {Smith \. 

 Render.) The defendant had been tenant to the owner of the field, 

 and obtained permission from his landlord to cut down some timber 

 that was on the field, for the purpose of erecting a cattle-house. The 

 building consisted of six posts, driven four feet into the ground, and a 

 number of smaller posts driven to the depth of eighteen inches or two 

 feet ; and this erection was completed except the tiling, and was in a 

 condition to have the timber of the roof put on, and so stood in the 

 field. In this state of things the landlord sold the reversion to another 

 person, and the tenant not wishing to remain a tenant to the new owner 

 of the property, gave him a notice to quit, and before that notice had 

 expired pulled down the building he had erected, and carried away the 

 timber, and insisted that the materials belonged to him. It was con- 

 tended on his behalf before the Court of Exchequer that the building 

 did not become a fixture until it was completed, and that tlie tenant 

 had a right to remove any materials which had been inserted in the 

 foundation ; and it was insisted that he had passed no conclusive por- 

 tion of the building materials to the owner of the land, or to the 

 landlord, or annexed them to the land, till the thing was completed. 



But per Curiam (which confirmed the ruling of Martin B.) : " We 

 think that if a person takes from his landlord timber for the purpose of 

 erecting a house, and does use that timber in it, although he may add 

 something to it, yet nevertheless, in point of fact, the true question 

 as between the tenant and the reversioner to the fixture does not 

 arise, whatever might be the case in the event of a man partially 

 erecting a building from materials entirely his own. In this case it is 

 obvious that the original owner of the land never meant this timber to 

 be applied otherwise than to this house ; and if he sold it and the house 

 to the successor, the defendant had no right whatever to pull down the 

 building and remove that timber." 



The Court of Common Pleas decided in Leader v. Ilomewood, that 

 the right of a tenant to sever tenants' fixtures from the freehold, cannot 



