Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Law-Of-Real-Property/Water-Part-3.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 00:43:16+00:00

Document:
Bam. & Adol. 105. Contra, Reiff v. Reiff, 64 Pa. St. 134; Evans v. Iglehart, 6 Gill & J. 171. But not growing grasses. Reiff v. Reiff, 64 Pa. St. 134. Nor young trees. Co. Litt. 55a. But turpentine "scrape" may be. Lewis v. Mcnatt, 65 N. C. 63. And nursery stock. Brooks v. Galster, 51 Barb. 196; King v. Howland, 7 Barb. 263. See, also, Brackett v. Goddard, 54 Me. 309.
47 The seed must be sown. Mere preparation of the ground is not sufficient. Price v. Pickett, 21 Ala. 741.
48 Harris v. Frink, 49 N. Y. 24. Therefore a tenant from year to year is entitled to emblements. Clark v. Harvey, 54 Pa. St. 142. Reeder v. Sayre, 70 N. Y. 180. A tenant at will. Davis v. Brocklebank, 9 N. H. 73; Davis v. Thompson, 13 Me. 209; Towne v. Bowers, 81 Mo. 491; Pfanner v. Sturmer, 40 How. Prac. 401; Sherburne v. Jones, 20 Me. 70. And a tenant for life. Poin-dexter v. Blackburn, 1 Ired. Eq. 286; Perry v. Terrel, 1 Dev. & B. Eq. 441; Hunt v. Watkins, 1 Humph. 497; Thornton v. Burch, 20 Ga. 791; Bradley v. Bailey, 56 Conn. 374, 15 Atl. 746. And his lessees. Bevans v. Briscoe, 4 Har. & J. (Md.) 139. But, when the interest is of definite duration, there is no right to emblements; for instance, under a tenancy for years. Whitmarsh v. Cutting, 10 Johns. 360; Sanders v. Ellington, 77 N. C. 255; Dircks v. Brant, 56 Md. 500; Hendrixson v. Cardwell, 68 Tenn. 389; Gossett v. Drydale, 48 Mo. App. 430. But a custom to the contrary will give the right. Stultz v. Dickey, 5 Bin. (Pa.) 285; Biggs v. Brown, 2 Serg. & R. 14; Templeman v. Biddle, 1 Har. (Del.) 522; Van Doren v. Everitt, 5 N. J. Law, 460; Foster v. Robinson, 6 Ohio St. 90; Clark v. Banks, 6 Houst. 584. Contra, Harris v. Carson, 7 Leigh, 632.
49 Den v. Humphries, 3 Ired. (N. C.) 362.
(a) Real fixtures, or those which cannot be lawfully removed by the owner of a limited interest in the land. Real fixtures are real property.
(b) Chattel fixtures, or those which can be lawfully removed by such an owner. Chattel fixtures are personal property.
Buildings erected upon land and chattels annexed to land or to buildings on the land are called "fixtures." 53 When the annexation is made by the owner in fee of the land, such fixtures become real property.54 They may, of course, again become personalty by being actually severed from the land with that intent.55 But, where the annexation is made by the tenant of a less estate than a fee, it is not always easy to determine whether such fixtures become realty or remain personalty. Things annexed by a tenant sometimes become realty, and sometimes do not. The question is of importance, because, if the chattels become realty, they cannot be lawfully severed or removed by the tenant, while if they remain personalty, notwithstanding their annexation, they may be removed by the tenant before or at the expiration of his term. There is great conflict in the cases. The confusion has of a mortgage executed before the lease. Lane v. King, 8 Wend. 584; Down-nrd v. Groff, 40 Iowa, 597; Gilman v. Wills, 66 Me. 273. But see Cassilly v. Rhodes, 12 Ohio, 88. Cf. Lewis v. Klotz, 39 La. Ann. 259, 1 South. 539.
51 Van Doren v. Evoritt, 5 N. J. Law, 460.
52 1 Stlm. Am. St. Law, §§ 1334, 2064, 3233.
53 Teaff v. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511; Capen v. Peckham, 35 Conn. 88; Potter v. Cromwell, 40 N. Y. 287; Peirce v. Goddard, 22 Pick. 559.
54 Harris v. Scovel, 85 Mich.32, 48 N. W. 173; Dooley v. Crist, 25 111. 551; Sampson v. Cotton Mills, 64 Fed. 939. But see Jenkins v. Mccurdy, 48 Wis. 630, 4 N. W. S07. And ef. Green, J., in Stevens v. Railway Co., 31 Barb. 597.
(a) Express contract of the parties (p. 12).
(b) Statutory regulation, which conclusively presumes intention (p. 12).
(c) Character of the annexation (p. 13).
(1) Trade fixtures (p. 16).
(2) Agricultural fixtures (p. 17).
(3) Domestic fixtures (p. 18).
(2) Tenant for life or in tail (p. 19).
(3) Owner in fee (p. 19).
56 Ewell, Fixt. 1; Tyler, Fixt. 35.
57 Voorhees v. Mcginnis, 48 N. Y. 27S; Teaff v. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511. 58 O'donnell v. Hitchcock, 118 Mass. 401; Heffner v. Lewis, 73 Pa. St. 302; Fisher v. Saffer, 1 E. D. Smith, 611.

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