Holland v Hodgson (1872) LR 7 CP 328

The owner of a mill purchased some looms for use in his mill. They were attached to the stone floor
by nails driven into wooden beams. They could quite easily be removed. The owner then mortgaged
the mill and failed to keep up the payments and the mill was repossessed. The question for the court
was whether the looms were fixtures forming part of the land or whether they remained chattels.

Held:

The looms had become fixtures and thus formed part of the land mortgaged.

Blackburn J introduced the degree and object of annexation test:

an article which is affixed to the land even slightly is to be considered as part of the land, unless the
circumstances are such as to shew that it was intended to all along continue a chattel, the onus lying
on those who contend that it is a chattel.

Under this test, the question to be asked is whether the chattel was attached to the land to enable
the object to be better enjoyed as a chattel, or for the more convenient use of the land.

Blackburn J on the object of annexation:

"Thus blocks of stone placed one on the top of another without any mortar or cement for the
purpose of forming a dry stone wall would become part of the land, though the same stones, if
deposited in a builder's yard and for convenience sake stacked on the top of each other in the form
of a wall, would remain chattels."

Lyon & Co v London City and Midland Bank [1903] 2 KB 135

The claimants hired out some seating to Mr Brammall for use in his cinema for a period of 12 weeks.
The terms of the contract granted an option to purchase the chairs but this option was never
exercised. The local authority required the seating in the cinema to be fastened to the floor and
therefore Mr Brammall fixed the chairs to the floor with screws. Mr Brammall then mortgaged the
cinema to the defendant bank and defaulted on payments. The defendants took possession of the
cinema and the claimant brought an action for delivery up of the seating and damages for their
wrongful detention. The defendants argued that the seating had become fixtures and therefore title
had passed to them.
Held:

The chairs were chattels

Joyce J:

No doubt a chattel on being attached to the soil or to a building prima facie becomes a fixture, but
the presumption may be rebutted by showing that the annexation is incomplete, so that the chattel
can be easily removed without injury to itself or to the premises to which it is attached, and that the
annexation is merely for a temporary purpose and for the more complete enjoyment and use of the
chattel as a chattel. These chairs did not cease to be chattels on being screwed to the floor and the
property in them did not pass to the defendants.

Vaudeville Electric Cinema v Muriset [1923] 2 Ch 74

Cinema chairs attached to the floor of the cinema by screws were held to constitute fixtures despite
the fact they could be easily removed without too much damage. They had been affixed in order to
become a permanent feature and to enable the building to be better enjoyed as a cinema.
Ownership of the chairs thus passed to the bank when the claimant defaulted on their mortgage
payments.

Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco [1957] 2 QB 334

The defendant owned the freehold in premises from which he ran a wholesale tobacco business. He
leased part of the premises to the claimant from which he ran a tobacconist shop and had a flat in
which he resided. The defendant erected a sign that protruded into the claimants airspace by four
inches.

Held:

An injunction was granted to prevent the trespass of the airspace.