Author Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1878 Excerpt:...for the reason that annexations for trade purposes should be distinguished from annexations for purposes of agriculture. See, also, Williams v. Williams, 12 East, 209; Buckland v. Butterfield, 2 B. & B. 58. It has, however, been questioned, whether the English doctrine was applicable to the circumstances of this country (Van Ness v. Packard, 2 Pet. U. S. 137); and it was held, that a wooden building erected by a tenant, with a view to carry on the business of dairying, might be removed by him during the term, although it was two stories high in front, with a shed of one story, a cellar of stone or brick foundation, and a brick chimney, and was occupied by his family and servants who assisted in the dairy business. Id. And see Perkins v. Swank, 43 Miss. 349, 361. In Massachusetts, the rule applicable to trade fixtures was extended to an agricultural tenant (Whiting v. Brastow, 4 Pick. 310); and 6o, in a case in New York, Dubois v. Kelly, 10 Barb. 496. But see Ombony v. Jones, 19 N. Y. (5 Smith) 234. And it would seem that the question in respect to strictly agricultural fixtures, as between landlord and tenant, has not been fully settled by the authorities in this country. Merritt v. Judd, 14 Cal. 59; Ilarkness v. Sears, 26 Ala. 493; Pemberton v. King, 2 Dev. (N. C.) 376; Leland v. Gassett, 17 Vt. 410. If, however, the thing in dispute is so constructed as not to become affixed to the land or a building, it is a mere chattel, and would be held removable as between landlord-and tenant both by the American and the English decisions. Thus, a barn erected by a tenant, upon pattens and blocks of wood lying on the ground, might always be removed by him. Anthony v. JIaneys, 8 Bing. 186; Smith v. Benson, 1 Hill (KY.), 176. So, posts and boards on a farm will be...