176 The Agricultural Holdings {England) Act, 1875. 
the tenant where he had made necessary and useful erections 
for the benefit of his trade or manufactuie. 
At length, in 1803, a case* came before the Court of King's 
Bench, involving the distinct question whether a tenant-farmer 
can, before the end of his term, remove from the freehold build- 
ings constructed by him for the ordinary purposes of husbandry 
and connected with no description of trade. The tenant, who 
was defendant in the case, held a farm for twenty-one years ; 
and about fifteen years before the term expired he erected, at his . 
own expense, amongst other buildings, a beast-house, a cart- 
house, and fold-yard. The buildings were of brick and mortar, 
and tiled, the foundations being about a foot and a-half deep in 
the ground ; they were open to the front and supported by 
brick pillars. The fold-yard wall was of brick and mortar, and 
its foundation was in the ground. The defendant, before his 
lease expired, pulled down the buildings, dug up the founda- 
tions, and carried away the materials — leaving the premises in 
the same state as when he entered upon them. It appeared that 
the buildings were necessary and convenient for the occupation 
of the farm, which could not be well managed without them. 
In an action tried at Lincoln, a verdict had been found for the 
plaintiff, subject to the point of law ; and the question for the 
•opinion of the Court now was : Had the defendant a right to 
take away the buildings ? For the plaintiff, it was argued that 
their removal was waste at Common Law, and that the exceptions 
to the rule did not touch agriculture, but had been introduced 
solely for the benefit of trade. Buildings like those erected by 
the defendant, it was argued, " are not in their nature temporary 
or movable, but are calculated solely for the enjoyment of the 
land. The expense of erecting them is great, and their value is 
great on the spot, but of trifling consideration when removed. 
The injury of their removal, therefore, is much greater to the 
landlord than the benefit of the materials, when removed, is to 
the tenant. If the exception were extended to buildings erected 
for the purposes of agriculture, it would be as extensive as the 
rule itself, and would therefore destroy it. The sole object of 
such erections is for the purpose of enjoying the produce of the 
land. The land, therefore, is the principal ; the buildings are 
tlie accessory to the land. There is thus an essential distinction 
between buildings used in agriculture and buildings erected for 
engines or machinery used in trade, where the personal chattel 
is the principal." 
For the defendant, it was contended that the object of gradually 
relaxing the old rule of law between landlord and tenant had been 
* Elwes V. Mawo, 2 Smith's Leading Cases, 141, 
