A Discourse on the Case of Holland
The
case of Holland v. Hodgson is
the locus classicus case on what is a
“fixture”, which has become part of the land, for the purpose of the
applicability of the maxim quic quid
plantatur solo solo cedit. This case is very relevant in determining
whether a particular chattel has become so affixed to the land as to form part
of the land.
It
may be parenthetically observed that ‘fixture’ is an article which was once a
chattel but which has now become a part of land. ‘Fixtures’ are those material
things which are physically attached to land so that they become part of the
realty and the property of the landowner. A chattel on the other hand is a
physical object which never becomes attached to the land even though placed in
some close relation with it and so does not pass with conveyances of the land.
‘Chattels’ can be described as any property except freehold land and are
usually moveable items of property that are neither land nor permanently attached
to land or a building, either directly or vicariously through attachment to
real property.
The
case of Holland v. Hodgson
clarifies the controversy surrounding
when a chattel has become a fixture, so as to be regarded as part of the land;
the essence of which is to determine whether the maxim quic quid plantatur
solo solo cedit will be applicable in the circumstance. In that case,
Blackburn J., affirmed as follows;
There is no doubt that the general maxim of
law is that what is annexed to the land becomes part of the land, but it is
very difficult, if not impossible, to say with precision what constitutes an
annexation sufficient for this purpose.
The
facts of the case may be summarized as follows; the defendant, the owner of a
Mill, conveyed the property to the plaintiff by way of mortgage to secure the
repayment of a loan. The conveyance expressly included the buildings, a steam
engine and “all other fixtures whatsoever which now or at anytime hereafter
during the continuance of this security shall be set up and affixed to the said
hereditament”.
There
were over 400 looms installed in the Mill. The Mill had been specially adapted
for the steam-powered looms; and in order to keep the looms steady and in their
proper position for working, they were fastened to the floors by nails driven
through the holes in their feet into wooden plugs in the floor. However, the
looms could easily be removed without serious damage to the floors.
The
question for the court was whether the looms were fixtures forming part of the
land or whether they remained chattels. The court held that the looms had not
become fixtures in the circumstances. The court had regard not only to the fact
that the looms were fastened to the floors
in order to keep them steady and in their proper position for working; but
also, the fact that the looms could easily be removed without serious damage to
the floors and concluded, following the earlier case of Wiltshear v. Cottrell, (1853) 1 E & B 674, vol. 118 E. R. 589, that
“when the article in question is no further attached to the land than by its
own weight, it is generally to be considered a mere chattel”, and also that it
remains a chattel if attached only for the purpose of being used as a chattel.
In
the light of the forgoing, the court per Blackburn J., further opined that the
question whether the looms were fixtures forming part of the land or whether
they remained chattels, is a “question which must depend on the circumstances
of each case and mainly on circumstances as indicating intention, viz: the
degree of annexation and the object of annexation.”
Accordingly,
the learned jurist concluded that as follows:
Perhaps the
rule is that articles attached to the land than by their own weight are not
considered part of the land unless the circumstances show that they were
intended to be part of the land, the onus of showing such an intention lies on
the person(s) asserting that they have ceased to be chattels, and on the
contrary, articles affixed to the land even slightly is to be considered as part
of the land, unless the circumstances show that it was intended all along to
continue as chattel, the onus lying on those who contend that it is a chattel.
It is clear from the foregoing that the question whether
a chattel has become a fixture depends mainly on two factors: firstly, on the
intention of the original owner of the chattel as ascertained from the ‘degree
of annexation’; and secondly, on the ‘purpose of the annexation’. Everything
thus depends on the intention of the original owner of the chattels; because if
the intention is clearly to make the chattels part of the land, they do become
part of the land notwithstanding that they could be easily removed without
serious damage to the soil.
Lastly, the peculiarity of a given case must be considered,
before it is held that a chattel has metamorphosed into a fixture. The facts
and circumstances must show that the degree of attachment to the land and the
object of such attachment is an evidence from which an intention to make the
chattel a fixture can be inferred.