°
«. ,
e « «
* .

22 THE LEEWARD ISLANDS GAZETTE. {3 February, 1955.

Reference was also made toa similar passage in Clerk and Lindsell on Torts (tenth edition) at p. 439, and to the case of
Mackintosh v. Trotter and others (1838), 150 E. R. 1108, 1109, in which Parke B., referring to tenant's fixtures,

Baidt: “Se ccosecunees the tenant has the right to remove fixtures of this nature during his term, or during what may, for
this purpose, be considered as an excrescence on the term; but............6 they are not goods and chattels at all, but

parcel of the freehold, and as such not recoverable in trover.”

In considering this matter it is important to have a olear understanding of what is really intended by the
unscientific expression ‘ tenant’s fixtures.” It is not everything which is attached to land or toa building on land
that becomes a fixture in law; and the expression ‘tenant’s fixtures ” should not be taken to mean any and everything
attached to realty which is removable by a tenant; it relates only to annexations which amount to fixtures but which
the law, for certain well defined reasons (c.g. the encouragement of trade), allows the tenant to remove before the
expiration of his term. It is these removable fixtures (if one may so put it) that are commonly called tenant’s fixtures.
Clearly, therefore, the first and vital question in this case is whether the things claimed by the plaintiff or any of them
are fixtures in the true legal sense.

The law on this subject is admirably summarised in Cheshire’s Modern Real Property (1954 edition) at
pp. 100—102, as follows:—

. “The primary meaning from a historical point of view of “ fixtures” is chattels which are so affixed
to land or toa building on land as to become in fact part thereof. Chattels so fixed lose the character of
chattels and pass with the ownership of the land, for the maxim of the law is, guicquid plantatur solo,
solo cedit.

This question whether a chattel has been so affixed to land as to become part of it is sometimes
exceedingly difficult to answer. It is a question of law for the judge, but the decision in one case is no
sure guide in another, for everything turns upon the circumstances and mainly, though not decisively,
upon two particular circumstances, namely, the degree of annexation and the cbject of annexation
eddtica peeeseesiesedles The general rule is that a chattel is not deemed to be go annexed to land as to become a
fixture unless it is actually fastened to or connected with the land or building. Mere juxtaposition or
the laying of an article, however heavy, upon the land does not prima facie make it a fixture, even
though it subsequently sinks into the ground. Examples are a Dutch barn, consisting of a roof resting
upon wooden uprights, the uprights being made to lie upon brick columns Ict into the ground; or a
printing machine weighing several tons, standing on the floor and secured by its own weight. The cage
is the same if the posts which support the roof of a corrugated iron building are not embedded in the
concrete floor, but are held in position by iron strips fixed into the floor, The concrete foundation,
which is of course a fixture, is regarded as a separate unit from the superstructure. Again, a printing
machine which stands by its own weight upon the floor is not a fixture, even though the driving
apparatus is attached to the building at certain points. On the other hand a chattel that is attached to
land, however slightly, is prima facie to be deemed a fixture. Thus, a verandah connected with a house
is a fixture, as also are doors, windows, chimneypieces, ovens and other similar things.

Nevertheless the extent of annexation is not a decisive test,

“Perhaps the true rule is, that articles not attached to the land otherwise than by their own weight
“are not to be considered as part of the land, unless the cirenmstances are such as to show that they
“were intended to be part of the land, the onus of showing that they were so intended lying on those
“who assert that they have ceased to be chattels; and that, on the contrary, an article which is affixed to
“the land even slightly is to be considered as part of the land, unless the circumstances are such as to
“show that it was intended all along to continue a chattel, the onus lying on thoge who contend that
“it is a chattel.”

It is for this reason that the second consideration mentioned above is material, namely, the.........Object of
Annexation. The test here is to ascertain whether the chattel hag heen fixed for its more convenient use as a
chattel, or for the more convenient use of the land or building. Jor example, stones laid one upon another
without any mortar for the purpose of forming a wall become fixtures, but if stones are deposited in a builder’s
yard and for the sake of convenience stacked one on top of another they are not fixtures. Again, a compara-
tively durable method of affixation will not render a chattel a fixture, if the method of annexation is necessary
to its proper enjoyment as a chattel. Thus in the well-known case of Leigh v. Taylor: A tenant for life, the
owner of some valuable tapestry, laid strips of wood over the drawing-room yaper and fixed them to the
walls with two-inch nails. Canvas was stretchsd over these strips, and the tapestry was fastened by tacks to the
strips. It was held that the tapestry had not become a fixture. Vaughan Williams, L. J., said:

“Tn my judgment it is obvious that everything which was done here can be accounted for as being
“absolutely necessary for the enjoyment of the tapestry, and when one arrives at that conclusion there
“is an end of the case.” .

In the matter now before me it is abundantly clear from the method and degree of annexation, the oral
evidence given at the trial, and the circumstances generally, including the value of the articles in question, that there
never was the slightest intention on the part of the plaintiff that any of them should become part of the building;
and I am not persuaded that even the possibility of this being the case was contemplated by the defendant until the
plaintiff was arrested and his extradition became imminent; at this stage delaying tactics of a most obvious character
were employed in respect of the delivery of all the articles then in the premises.

Tam satisfied that the things claimed by the plaintiff were installed for a purely temporary purpose; such
annexation as there was, was solely for their more convenient use as chattels in the course of the plaintiff’s new
venture, the only one of its kind in Antigua. It would be a very simple matter indeed to disconnect the refrigerator
box (and also the false ceiling, if desired) from the main bnilding without leaving marks which could not be
obliterated. It is evident that the work was done ina manner which would permit of such disconnection: and
although the box would have to be tuken to pieces to get it ont of the premises, it could be put together in the same
form elsewhere.