4C0 TROVER BY TENANT FOR FIXTURES. 



le exercised after the landlord has rc-enlcred, and all tenancy of any hind 

 has bcenjmt an end to ; aud it makes no difference that the tenant has 

 not eyineed un intention to abandon his right to such fixtures. And 

 2^er Curiam : " The law as to the limit of time within which a tenant is 

 allowed to sever from the freehold the fixtures which are usually called 

 ' tenant's fixtures,' is by no means clearly settled. According to the 

 older authorities, the rule was that he must sever them during the term. 

 But in Pcnton v. Rohart it appears to haye been considered that the 

 severance might be made even after the expiration of the tenant's in- 

 terest, if he has not quitted possession. However, in Weeton v. Wood- 

 code, the rule was laid down that the tenant's right continues only 

 during his original term, and such further period of possession by him, 

 as he holds the premises under a right still to consider himself a 

 tenant. It is perhaps not easy to understand fully the exact meaning 

 of this rule, and whether or not it justifies a tenant who has remained in 

 possession after the end of his term, and so become a tenant on suffer- 

 ance, in severing the fixtures during the time he continues in possession 

 as such tenant." 



Fatteson J. held in Leach y. Tliomas, that an outgoing tenant has no 

 right to remove some small pillars of bricJc and mortar built on a dairy 

 floor to hold pans, although such pillars are not let into the ground. 

 " Thcyhad," his lordship said, " become, I think, part of the freehold, 

 and could not be legally removed, and it is not necessary for that 

 purpose that they should have been let into the ground." 



In Keal v. Vincy, by a written agreement between the plaintiffs and 

 the defendant, the defendant was to accept of the assignment of the 

 lease of a farm from the plaintiffs, and to take the fixtures in the farm- 

 house and growing crops at a valuation. He was afterwards let into 

 possession of the fixtures, and the crops which were valued to him, but 

 the lease was never assigned. Lord Mlenborough C.J. held that indebi- 

 tatus assumpsit would not lie for the price of the fixtures and crops, and 

 that the plaintiff's only remedy was by a special action on the agreement. 

 His lordship considered the agreement an entire one, and that fixtures 

 are not chattels until severance from the realty. Boydell v. 31'Michael 

 decided that a tenant has during the term a sufficient interest in the 

 fixtures to enable him to maintain trover against a third party who 

 wrongfully removes them, although at tlie end of the term he may be 

 Ixnind to leave them for the use of the landlord. And according to 

 Jlilchman v. Walton, the mortgagee of the tenant may declare in case 

 a.s reversioner against the assignee of the tenant, for the removal of 

 fixtni-es from the premises, whereby they were dilapidated and injured ; 

 and he is also entitled, during the term, to recover in trover against 



