Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/Removable-fixtures-a-Trade-fixtures-Part-2.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 00:33:04+00:00

Document:
21. Merritt v. Judd 14 Cal. 59; Allen v. Kennedy, 40 Ind. 142; Stokoe v. Upton, 40 Mich. 581, 29 Am. Rep. 560; Holmes v. Tremper, 20 Johns. (X. Y.) 29 11 Am. Dec. 238; Robinscn v Harrison, 235 Pa. 613, 85 Atl. 879.
22. Bush v. Havird, 12 Idaho 352, 86 Pac. 529; Carlin v. Ritter.
68 Md. 478, 13 Atl. 370, 6 Am. St. Rep. 467; 16 Atl. 301; Wall v. Hinds, 70 Mass. (4 Gray) 256, 64 Am. Dec. 64; Waverly Park Amusement Co. v. Michigan United Traction Co., 197 Mich. 101, 163 N. W. 919; Ombony v. Jones, 19 N. Y. 234.
23. Royce v. Latshaw, 15 Colo. App. 420, 62 Pac. 627; Conrad v. Saginaw Min. Co., 54 Mich. 249, 52 Am. Rep. 817, 20 N. W. 39; Western North Carolina R. Co. . Deal, 90 N. C. 110; Van Ness v.
Pacard, 2 Pet. (U. S.) 137, 7 L. Ed. 374.
24. Penton v. Robert, 2 East. 90; Lee v. Risdon, 7 Taunt. 191; Miller v. Baker, 1 Met. (Mass.) 27; Duffus v. Bangs, 122 N. Y. 123, 25 N. E. 980.
25. See Wall v. Hinds, 70 Mass. (4 Gray) 256, 64 Am. Dec. 64; Holmes v. Trempei, 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 29, 11 Am. Dec. 238; Van Ness v. Pacard, 27 U. S. (2 Pet.) 137, 7 L. Ed. 374.
26. Dudley v. Warde, Ambler, 113; Estate of Hinds, 5 Whart. (Pa.) 138, 34 Am. Dec. 542; Overman v. Sasser, 107 N. C. 432; Lawton v. Lawton, 3 Atk. 13; Elwes v. Maw, 3 East, 38; In re De Falbe  1 Ch. 523.
26a. Fisher v. Dixon, 12 Clark & F. 312; Walmsley v. Milne, 7 C. B. N. S. 115; Climie v. Wood,:L. R. 4 Exch. 328; Harkness v. Sears, 26 Ala. 403, 62 Am. Dec. 742; Wight v. Gray, 73 Me. 297; cannot be exorcised if the premises will be thereby substantially injured, to the disadvantage of the reversioner;41 nor, according to some authorities, if the article annexed cannot be removed without losing its Identity, or being reduced to merely a collection of crude materials.42 Furthermore, if the tenant has substituted a new fixture for one on the premises at the time of taking possession, and this latter has been injured or permanently removed, he cannot remove the substituted article, since the effect would be to 'leave the premises in worse condition than when he took the lease.43 v. Muhlbach, 69 Md. 395, 1 L. R. A. 507, 16 Atl. 117. But see Williston, Sales. Sec. 65.
Burnside v. Twitchell, 43 N. H. 390; Foote v. Gooch, 96 N. C. 265, 60 Am. Rep. 411; 13 Am. & Eng. Encyc. Law (2nd Ed.) 635, 663. G71.
England, in a case frequently referred to,31 that the principle on which a tenant is allowed to remove fixtures annexed by him for purposes of trade cannot be extended so as to allow him to remove fixtures annexed for agricultural purposes. There are, however, in this country, quite a number of dicta adverse to this decision.32 There is, moreover, at least one case in which an article annexed for the purpose of putting the agricultural products of the soil in form or conaffirming In re DeFalbe [19011 1 Ch. 523 (tapestries).
28. Gaffield v. Hapgood, 34 Mass. (17 Pick.) 192, 28 Am. Dec. 290, per Putnam, J.
29. Gibson v. Hammersmith & City R. Co., 2 Drew. & S. 603, 609. See Seeger v. Pettit, 77 Pa. 440, 18 Am. Rep. 452.
30. Leigh v. Taylor  App. Cas. 157, affirming In re De Falbe  1 Ch. 523.
2 Ch. 497; Balnway v. Cobb, 99 Mass. 457. Contra, as between executor and heir, Squier v. Mayer, Freem. Ch. 249, cited in Re De Falbe  1 Ch. 523, 535.
31. Elwes v. Maw, 3 East, 38.
32. Van Ness v. Packard. 27 U. S. (2 Pet.) 137, 7 L. Ed. 374; Harkness v. Sears, 26 Ala. 493, 62 Am. Dec. 742; Davis' Adm'r v. Eastham, 81 Ky. 116; Perkins v. Swank, 43 Miss. 349; Dubois v. Kelly, 10 Barb. (N. Y.) 496; Wing v. Gray, 36 Vt. 261. See Carver v. Gough, 153 Pa. 225, 25 Atl. 1124.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.