Part I. Chidley v. West Ham, utensils in distillery. Judgment of cumstances, the purpose and time for which the engine was intended to be used were of a quasi permanent character, and that the engine was, therefore, a fixture. The only other case which it is thought necessary to mention here is that of Chidley v. The Churchwardens of West Ham (c). There the question was whether certain utensils in a distillery were rateable as being fixtures (d). Some of these were screwed down, and some attached to pipes, which again were fastened to steam engines or to articles which were clearly fixtures. A further question arose as to two pumps fastened by bolts through the walls to iron plates on the other side. The special case stated that all these articles were necessary in the process of distilling, but were capable of being easily disconnected, and that each of them before being connected was a separate and complete article in itself, known in the trade as such; the case also stated that all of them were bought and sold as separate and complete articles, and that most of them were bought and sold secondhand as well as new. The Court held that the articles in question were chattels. Blackburn, J., in the course of his judgment said: The question "depends, as is stated in Holland v. Hodgson (supra), on whether they are annexed to the freehold ; "and if they are annexed in a certain sense, with what "intent they were so annexed. Applying these rules it "appears by the case that all the articles are chattels well "known in the trade, and sold separately, both as new and "secondhand. They are not attached to the premises, "except in the sense that the weight of the article keeps "it steady, and though one or two are screwed down and "some attached to pipes, which again are attached to "steam engines, or to what are clearly fixtures, this alone "will not make them fixtures. I thought at first that the "two pumps were annexed to the freehold, but with some (c) 32 L. T. 486. (d) As to rateability of fixtures, see post, p. 338. "hesitation, I now think that they are not so annexed as to come within the rule. They are bought as independent "chattels, and though screwed down while used, still they "can easily be unscrewed and again sold as chattels; and 66 as the rest of the Court clearly hold they are not an"nexed to the freehold I agree with them." Lush, J., in assenting, said, "These cases are always difficult, owing "to the things being often almost, and yet not entirely, "fixtures. . . . . I do not think, from the description given of the works, that they are so annexed as to become "part of the soil. As to the pump (sic) I think it is not fixed, and that as it is capable of being sold again, and "is fixed merely to steady it, it cannot be treated as a "fixture." Chap. I. West Ham In every view this case presents difficulties. The Court Decision in appear to have treated all the articles upon exactly the Chidley v. same footing, whereas there seems to have been a con- considered. siderable difference in the degree of annexation between the utensils and the pumps. In accordance with the decision in Longbottom v. Berry, as to the "washer" (e), it would seem that the physical annexation of these utensils was incomplete, and they might on that ground be said to be chattels. With regard to the pumps, however, the description would seem to show that they were clearly annexed physically, and certainly as much so as the looms in Holland v. Hodgson. It must be presumed, therefore, that as regards the pumps, at any rate, the ratio decidendi was that the annexation was for a temporary purpose; and this inference appears to have been drawn from the statement in the case, that all the things were frequently bought and sold separately, both new and second-hand. But this could surely have been said of the looms in Holland v. Hodgson and the earlier cases, and the fact that they were capable of being so bought and sold would not, (e) Ante, p. 14. F. с in itself, negative the inference that they were attached for the purpose of carrying on the trade; and that it was intended that they should remain fixed during the interest of the appellant. Moreover, it is to be noticed that in Grymes v. Boweren (e), it was decided that pumps attached in a very similar way were fixtures. As regards the pumps, therefore, as to which it is to be noticed that Blackburn, J., expressed some doubt, it is submitted the decision is questionable. On a consideration of the authorities referred to in the preceding pages on the subject of annexation, it will be seen how very difficult, if not impossible, it is to lay down any general rule as to what constitutes an annexation sufficient to make an article a fixture. In almost all the cases on the subject the decision in Hellawell v. Eastwood has been quoted, and in the majority it has been unfavourably criticised, though the principles of law there laid down have been admitted to be correct. It is submitted that, according to the tendency of later judicial opinion, the Court of Exchequer did not in that case sufficiently take into consideration the fact, that though the immediate purpose with which the "mules" were fixed was to render them steadier, yet, as the result of the annexation was to put the premises to a more profitable use for the purposes to which they were applied, they were annexed for an object sufficiently permanent to make them part of the land. It is difficult to see what was the meaning attached by the Court in that case to the words. "for the improvement of the inheritance." It follows from the definition of "fixtures" given above (ƒ), that in one sense all fixtures may be said to be affixed for a purpose only temporary, seeing that their removal is contemplated at some period. It cannot be supposed, however, that the Court considered that tenant's fixtures, i. c. (e) 6 Bing. 437, and post, p. 114. (f) Ante, p. 2. fixtures removable by a tenant, were not part of the soil, and yet it is plain that the object of annexation by a tenant is not to improve the landlord's reversion. The only possible explanation seems to be that the Court of Exchequer would have thought that such fixtures were for the improvement of the inheritance, in the sense that if not previously severed they pass with the demised premises to the landlord at the expiration of the term. Chap. I. annexation must be relation to But be this as it may, it is now settled beyond dispute, Object of that when the object and purpose with which an article has been affixed, are considered as a test whether the looked at in article has or has not ceased to be a chattel, they must interest of be regarded in relation to the interest in the land of the person annexing. person affixing the article, which interest, as in the case of a tenant, may itself be temporary; and that if it appears that a chattel has been annexed with the intention of its remaining affixed during the continuance of that interest, the purpose of the annexation cannot be considered merely temporary (g). There can be little doubt, therefore, that in circumstances similar to those in Hellawell v. Eastwood, the machines in question would now be considered fixtures. authorities. The authorities on this subject seem to lead to the Result of conclusion that where articles are in any way annexed to the realty, with a view to its better enjoyment during the interest of the person annexing them, they become fixtures, whether that person be the owner of an estate of inheritance, for life, or merely for a term of years. It is submitted, therefore, that, in inquiring whether a given article is a fixture or a chattel, the extent of the interest of the person annexing it is immaterial, the question being what was the object and purpose of the annexation as (g) Boyd v. Shorrock, L. R., 5 Eq. 72, 78; Turner v. Cameron, L. R., 5 Q. B. 306, 312; Holland v. Hodgson, L. R., 7 Part I. Constructive annexation. Locks and keys, &c. evidenced by the use to which the article was, in fact, applied. There seems, however, to have been some confusion in the cases on this point, owing, it is thought, to the fact that the distinction between questions of this nature, and those as to the right of removal of articles admitted to be fixtures, has not been sufficiently observed (). In the latter case, as will be seen hereafter, it is necessarily important to consider the nature of the interest in the realty of the person who has made the annexation. It remains to notice those exceptional cases of what is called constructive annexation, in which, in certain circumstances, things are by construction of law considered to be annexed to the realty, although in fact they are not so (i). These cases are based on the maxim res accessoria sequitur rem principalem, upon which principle where articles, though in themselves unattached and mere chattels, are accessory to the realty, or essential parts of something which is itself a part of the realty, they are considered to be constructively annexed to it. Thus, locks and keys, windows or doors hanging or serving to a house, although they may be distinct things, are considered to be annexed to the house to which they belong (). Similarly, a millstone removed for the temporary purpose of picking, remains parcel of the mill (1). (h) See per Kindersley, V.-C., in Gibson v. Hammersmith R. Co., 32 L. J., Ch. 337, 342. (i) They do not, however, acquire all the incidents of realty; for example, trover may be brought for them like other chattels. (k) Pyot v. Lady St. John, Cro. Jac. 329; Sheppard's Touchstone, 470; Liford's case, 11 Co. 50 b; Bishop v. Elliott, 11 Exch. at p. 119; Moody v. Steggles, 12 Ch. D. 261, 267; and see post, pp. 277, 388. (1) Place v. Fagg, 4 M. & R. 277; Walmsley v. Milne, 7 C. B., N. S. 115; Sewell v. Angerstein, 18 L. T. 300; Metrop. Counties, &c. Society v. Brown, 26 Beav. 454, 459; Wadleigh v. Janvrin, 41 Now Hampshire, 504, 511. So in the Digest, Lib. XIX. tit. 1, 17, |