4. Fixtures

The maxim is quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit. A chattel that is annexed to the land loses its character as a chattel and passes with the land. Not everything that touches the land is a fixture. The cases ask two questions, and both are questions of law for the judge. Reynolds v Ashby is the authority for that last point.

Degree of annexation. If the thing is fastened, even slightly, it is prima facie part of the land. If it rests on its own weight, it is prima facie still a chattel. Blackburn J stated that in Holland v Hodgson. The burden is on the person who says the prima facie answer is wrong. A heavy object that merely sinks into the ground is not, for that reason, a fixture. H E Dibble Ltd v Moore is the authority.

Purpose of annexation. Was it fixed to improve the land for good, or only so that the chattel could be used or displayed? Hellawell v Eastwood asks that question. In Holland v Hodgson the same stones are a wall, and part of the land, if built as a dry stone wall on a farm, and chattels if stacked in a builder's yard.

Leigh v Taylor is the tapestry. It was tacked to wooden strips, which were fixed to the wall, only so that it could be seen. It was not part of the land. Hulme v Brigham is the printing machines, nine to twelve tons, attached to motors that were fixed to the floor. The annexation was only to keep them steady. They stayed chattels. Berkeley v Poulett is the marble statue, nearly half a ton, standing on a plinth and not fixed. It was not part of the land.

The other way also happens. In D'Eyncourt v Gregory, statues, seats, vases, tapestries and pictures were held to be part of the land because they were part of the architectural design of the house, even where they were not really fixed. There was a plan for the house, and these objects carried it out.

A conservatory bolted to a house by eight cantilevers was part of the land in Buckland v Butterfield. If a seller wants to take a fixture away, the contract must say so.

Tenants are treated more gently. Trade fixtures, and domestic or ornamental fixtures, may be removed. They must come away without substantial damage to the premises. Spyer v Phillipson is the case. Trade fixtures should be removed before the lease ends. Ornamental ones may be removed within a reasonable time after it ends. The same question can arise between vendor and purchaser, between a personal representative and a devisee, and between mortgagor and mortgagee. Phillips v Lamdin is the vendor and purchaser case.