Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/Sec-272-Removable-fixtures-a-Trade-fixtures.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 18:27:08+00:00

Document:
The strict application of the rule that things annexed to the land become a part of the land would give to the reversioner or remainderman all articles annexed by one who is a tenant for a limited estate only, and so tend to prevent the making of improvements by him, and the most beneficial utilization of the premises. In view of the undesirability of such a result, the whether an article is a trade fixture is, it is conceived, in no way a question whether it was intended so to be, there usually, indeed, being no intention in this regard, but it is rather a question whether, so far as apppears from the nature of the article, and the mode in which the premises were utilized, it was annexed for the purpose of aiding in the conduct of a trade.
Rule has been subjected to considerable relaxations in such tenant's favor, and certain classes of articles, although of such character and so affixed that, as between persons in other relations, they would be treated as permanent annexations, are ordinarily removable by him or his representative.
12. Ante, this section; note 98.
Works Co. v. New York Security & Trust Co., 83 Fed. 757, 28 C. C. A. 76; Binkley v. Forkner, 117 Ind. 176, 3 L. R. A. 33, 19 N. E. 753; German Savings & Loan Soc. v. Weber, 16 Wash. 95, 38 L. R. A. 267, 47 Pac. 224.
York, 173 N. Y. App. Div. 463, 159 N. Y. Supp. 357; Otis Elevator Co. v. Palmetto Construction Co., 237 Fed. 769, 150 C. C. A. 523.
15. Horn v. Clark Hardware Co., 54 Colo. 522, 131 Pac. 405; Hathaway v. Davis, 32 Kan. 693. 5 Pac. 29; Arnold v. Goldfield Third Chance Mining Co., 32 Nev. 447, 109 Pac. 718; Washburn v. Inter Mountain Mining Co., 56 Ore. 578, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 357, 109 Pac. 382; Cooper v. Cleghorn, 50 Wis. 113, 121, 50 X. W. 113. But see Fletcher v. Kelly, 88 Iowa, 475, 21 L. R. A. 213, 55 N. W. 474.
Furthermore, in view of the wide scope given to the privilege of removing trade fixtures, as including, apparently, annexations made in the course of any gainful occupation, including that of appropriating the mineral profits of the earth, the exclusion of the right of removal in the case of annexations made in the course of agricultural operations seems arbitrary and illogical.
There are occasional statements to be found to the effect that all annexations made by a tenant for years for the better enjoyment of the premises are removable by him,16 but these are not in accord with the weight of authority, which is, substantially, that the tenant's rights of removal are restricted to (1) trade fixtures; (2) domestic and ornamental fixtures; and, by some decisions, (3) agricultural fixtures.
. 16. Hedderich v. Smith, 103 Ind. 203, 53 Am. Rep. 509, 2 N. E. 315; Bliss v. Whitney, 9 Allen (Mass.) 114, 85 Am. Dec. 745; Kerr v. Kingsbury, 39 Mich. 150, 33 Am. Rep. 362; Winner v. Williams, 82 Miss. 669, 35 So. 308; Bircher v. Parker, 40 Mo. 118; Asheville Woodworking Co. v. Southwick, 119 N. C. 611, 26 S. E. 253; State v. Bodder, 166 Wis.
17. Poole's Case, 1 Salk. 368, per Holt, C. J.
18. Hill v. Sewald, 53 Pa. 271, 91 Am. Dec. 209; Watts-Campbell Co. v. Yuenling, 51 Hun (N. Y.) 302, 3 N. Y. Supp. 869.
19. Linahan v. Barr, 41 Conn. 471; Royce v. Latshaw, 15 Colo. App, 420, 62 Pac. 627; Baker v. McClurg, 198 111. 28, 59 L. R. A.
131, 92 Am. St. Rep. 261. 64 N. E. 701; Roth v. Collins, 109 Iowa, 501, 98 N. W. 543; Brownell v. Fuller, 60 Neb 558, 83 N. W. 669; Carver v. Gough, 153 Pa. 225, 25 Atl. 1124 (semble); Ballard v. Alaska Theatre Co., 93 Wash. 655; 161 Pac. 478.
20. Dobsehuetz v. Holliday, 82 111. 371; Holbrook v. Chamber-lin, 116 Mass. 155, 17 Am. Rep. 146; Andrews v. Day Button Co., 132 N. Y. 348, 30 N. E. 831.

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.