Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 9.djvu/284

 274 F I X F L A founded the Revue mensuclle d tfconomie Politiqite, which he continued till 1836. He also contributed to Le Siecle, La Quotidien*e, Le Journal des ticonomistes, and La Revue NouL Me. An article of his iu the August number of the Revue Nouvelle for 1846, on the religious condition of Germany, attracted considerable attention. His principal work is Observations sur les Classes Ouvrieres, 1846, in which he argues against all attempts to regulate artificially the rate of wages. His pamphlet on L Association des Douanes Allemandes was in 1840 crowned by the Academy of Sciences, but has not been published. He died suddenly at Paris 31st July 1846. FIXTURES, in law, may be defined as things which have been fixed or attached to land, or, as it is expressed in English law, things annexed to the freehold. All systems of law make a marked distinction between immovables and movables, between real and personal property, between land and all other things. In the case of fixtures the ques tion arises under which set of rights they are to fall under those of real or of personal property The general rule of English law is that everything attached to the land goes with the land quidquid plantatur solo, solo cedit. This, like many other rules of English law, is all in favour of the freeholder ; and its injustice has been modified by a large number of exceptions formulated from time to time by the courts as occasion arose. As to the kind of &quot; fixing &quot; necessary to change the legal character of the thing fixed, it would not be easy to lay down any precise rule. Things merely resting on the ground by the force of their own weight, removable easily and without damage to the soil, and intended not for the improvement of the inheritance but for temporary use, would not be regarded as fixtures. On the other hand, there i.s what is called constructive annexation, when the articles in question are not in any sense fixed at all, but pass with the freehold as if they were, e.g., the keys of a house, heirlooms, &c. Questions as to the property in fixtures may arise (1) between landlord and tenant, (2) between heir and executor, (3) between executor and remainder-man or reversioner. These are the principal cases. (1.) As a general rule, if the tenant has affixed anything to the freehold during his occupation, he cannot remove it without the permission of his landlord. But an exception was established in favour of trade futures. In a case before Lord Holt it was held that a soap-boiler might, during his term, remove the vats he had set up for trade purpose, and that not by virtue of any special custom, but &quot; by the common law in favour of trade, and to encourage industry.&quot; Agriculture is not a trade within the meaning of this exception, and fixtures erected by a farmer for the purposes of agriculture may not be removed without the landlord s consent. On the other hand, nurserymen and gardeners, whose industry closely resembles agriculture, are allowed to remove trees, shrubs, &c., planted by them with a vieXv to sale. It seems probable that the introduc tion of more elaborate mechanical processes in agriculture particularly the use of steam-power may have the effect of modifying the law as to agricultural fixtures. The statute 14 and 15 Viet. c. 25 enacts that, when a tenant- farmer has, with the written consent of his landlord, erected buildings, machinery, &c., for agricultural or trade purposes, the same shall be his property, and removable by him, after giving notice to the landlord, who may, however, elect to purchase them. Again, ornamental fixtures, such as hangings and looking- glasses, tapestry, iron-backs to chimneys, wainscot fixed by screws, marble chimney-pieces, are held to belong to the tenant, and to be removable without the landlord s consent. Here again the extent of the privilege is a matter of some uncertainty. In one case it was held that the privilege did not extend to a conservatory erected on a brick foundation 15 inches deep, and connected with other buildings. Mr Amos, in his book on fixtures, mentions four points which would be important in settling whether an ornamental fixture is removable or not : (1) the mode iu which it is united with the freehold ; (2) its nature and construction, whether meant to be a temporary or permanent improve ment ; (3) whether it can be easily removed without injury to the freehold; (4) whether there is any local usage. In all these cases the fixtures must be removed during the term. If the tenant gives up possession of the premises without removing the fixtures, it will be presumed, it appears, that he has made a gift of them to the landlord, and that presumption probably could not be rebutted by positive evidence of a contrary intention. His right to tho fixtures is not, however, destroyed by the mere expiry of the term, if he still remains in possession ; but if he has onco left the premises, he cannot come back and claim his fix tures. Iu one case where the fixtures had actually been severed from the freehold after the end of the term, it was held that the tenant had no right to recover them. (2.) As between heir and executor or administrator. The question of fixtures arises between these parties on the death of a person owning land. His real property goes to his heir ; his personal property goes to his executor. In this case exceptions introduced in favour of the tenant are not allowed in favour of the executor, for, as it is said, the &quot; heir is a favourite of the law,&quot; There is some conflict of authorities on this point, and cases might be cited on both sides of the question, whether the executor as against the heir has a right to ornamental or even to trade fixtures. Thus in one case a cider-mill let into the ground was held to belong to the executor; in another (a Scotch case before the House of Lords) colliery machinery was awarded to the heir, although portions of it might have been detached without any injury to the land. Blackstone lays down the rule that whatever is strongly affixed to the freehold (quod ex cedibus non facile revellitur) passes to the heir. (3.) When a tenant for life of land dies the question of fixtures arises between his representatives and the persons next entitled to the estate (the remainder-man or reversioner) The remainder-man is not so great a favourite of the law as the heir, and the right to fixtures is construed more favourably for executors than in the preceding cases between heir and executor. Whatever is executor s fixtures against the heir would therefore be executor s fixtures against the remainder-man. And the result of the cases seems to be that, as against the remainder, the executor of the tenant for life would be certainly entitled to trade fixtures. Similar questions may arise in other cases, e.g., as between mortgagor and mortgagee. When land is conveyed the fixtures pass with it, unless a contrary intention is ex pressed in the conveyance. Again, in reference to bills of sale the question arises. Bills of sale are dispositions of personal property similar to mortgages, the possession remaining with the person selling them. To make them valid they must be registered, and so the question has arisen whether deeds conveying fixtures ought not to have been registered as bills of sale. Unless it was the intention of the parties to make the fixtures a distinct security, it seems a deed of mortgage embracing them does not require to be registered as a bill of sale. FLACCUS, CAIUS VALERIUS, a Roman poet of the first century of the empire, of whose personal history little or nothing is known. He has been identified, but on wholly insufficient grounds, with the Flaccus, a poet friend of Martial, to whom the 77th epigram of the 1st book i.s addressed, and hence described as a native of Padua, and in needy circumstances. In the subscription of the Vatican