ambler case Lord Dudley against Lord ware October see in re de Falbe Ch tenant  for life or in tail erect a fire engine to work a colliery it shall on his  death be consider as part of his personal estate and not go with the estate to  remainderman lib Reg b foe b S c hark ms capper a p hill ms Vol p from Mr ford  ms I William Lord Dudley die seize of a colliery on which be erect four fire  engine three of which have be erect by earl Edward his father who be tenant in  tail of the estate which come to earl William under a settlement and the four  be erect by earl William but it do not appear whether earl William be tenant  for life or tenant in tail of the estate bill by plaintiff as executor of  William Lord William die intestate the plaintiff bill be file as administrator  lib Reg against the defendant who be remainderman of the estate to have the  four fire engine deliver up as part of the personal estate of earl William  Lord Hardwicke c after argument at bar there be two question the first be a  general question whether fire engine of this nature erect by a particular  tenant or by tenant in tail be to be consider as part of the owner real or  personal estate second question be as to three of the fire engine not erect by  earl William but by earl Edward whether they will follow the same rule as  those erect by the last tenant earl William to first there have be many  question of this kind both in law and equity and some determination on very  nice and almost frivolous circumstance but some general rule be very clear as  what be annex to the freehold be to be consider as part of it and yet there be  some exception to that rule as between landlord and tenant what be erect by  the latter for the sake of trade may be remove though fix to the freehold  indeed such removal must be during the term or he will be a trespasser so  marble chimneypieces c but this do not hold between the heir and executor so  may these engine be remove as between landlord and tenant ambler and though  the case between landlord and tenant do not hold so strong throughout yet it  answer one objection videlicet that a house have be build to which the fire en  one be annex and that the executor can pull down the house but the distinction  be where the house be the principal and where only the accessary here the  engine be the principal therefore it be like the case of copper c you can take  they away without spoil the wall yet as they be the principal and the building  be only the better to enable the use of they they may be remove the case be  between executor of tenant for life in tail and a remainder man be not quite  so strong as between landlord and tenant yet the same reason govern it if  tenant for life erect such a engine in the case of Lawton v Lawton it be  determine it shall go to executor partly on the reason there mention and  partly on the authority of the case of a cydermill there cite to have be so  adjudge Lord c b comens that of Lawton v Lawton atk S c hill ms be the case of  creditor but that make no difference because the question be whether part of  the real or personal estate if it be so in the case of tenant for life comens  that of Lawton v creditor but that make real or personal estate if be in case  of tenant in tail tenant in tail have but a particular estate though somewhat  high than tenant for life in the reason of the thing there be no material  difference the determination have be from consideration of the benefit of  trade a colliery be not only a enjoyment of the estate but in part carry on a  trade in jesus college v bloom ante the reason of emblements go to the  executor of a particular tenant hold here to encourage agriculture suppose a  man of indifferent health he will not erect such a engine at a vast expense  unless it will go to his family it be no argument to say the colliery can not  be work without these engine they be of late invention not above forty year  ago how be colliery work before they may be more beneficial work than without  they d question as to three of the fire engine plaintiff be not entitle to  they for he ambler er p sue only as administrator to William earl of Dudley  and they be erect by earl Edward plaintiff must recover on his own strength  and show a title which he have not do for the representative of Edward ambler  earl Dudley be entitle who be lady Diana Fielding and plaintiff be neither  representative of lady Diana nor of earl Edward but say William Lord Dudley  have possession so long that the statute of limitation may be plead by he to  any claim make against he but that do not give the plaintiff title nor be it  clear the statute of limitation will take place for there be many exception in  it as infancy c but suppose the plaintiff to be sue as representative of  Edward earl Dudley yet it appear that after his death there be a dispute  between William Lord Dudley and lady Diana Fielding who be executrix of Edward  and that upon Lord Talbot opinion that those engine belong to the inheritance  lady Diana give they up not as a gift to William Lord Dudley but as a gift to  and part of the inheritance therefore decree the one engine erect by William  Lord Dudley to the plaintiff and dismiss the bill as to the other three engine  vide Lawton v Lawton December atk see wood v Gaynon Amb and in attorneygeneral  v Downing see yearbook Henry foe pl pool case salk day v Bisbitch cro  Elizabeth as to building erect for purpose of trade see Penton v Robart east  Naylor v coll taunt thresher v east London water work b c limekiln see last  case outbuilding see Cullings v Tuffnel bull n p Fitzherbert v shaw h Bl dean  v Allally woodf Esp Elwes maw east ex part Quincey atk contra pool case salk  so as to hang and pier glass beek v rebow p W door day v Austin Owen cook case  more Wainscoats Lawton v Lawton atk contra   cro Elizabeth a wall Owen in  Buckland v Butterfield a conservatory erect on a brick foundation and attach  to the dwellinghouse be hold not to be removable by the tenant bro b S c more  as between the heir and the executor the general rule be that whatever be fix  to the freehold become part of it   Litt a in Lawton v salmon h Bl in note S c  infra Lord Mansfield say he can not find any case except that about the  cidermill cite in Lawton v Lawton atk where there have be any relaxation  between the heir and executor in Elwes v maw east Lord Ellenborough say as  between the heir and executor the rule obtain with most rigour in favour of  the inheritance and against the right to disannex therefrom and to consider as  a personal chattel any thing which have be affix thereto see ex part Quincey  atk cave v cave vern Keilw a but in squill v mayor Freem a furnace fix to the  freehold and hang nail to the wall be hold to go to the executor and not to  the heir so also in Harvey v Harvey Str be hang tapestry and iron back to  chimnies in Lawton v Lawton b r easter term Geo in a action of trover for salt  pan the special case state that the salt pan be make of hammer iron rivet  together and fix on two piece of brickwork but not to the wall and may be take  out in piece you may walk round they they be put in some year ago by Robert  Lawton a ancestor and if take away the wychhouses and spring will be of no  value with they they be worth pound aweek question be whether these pan go to  the plaintiff as personal representative or to the defendant as heir at law  for the plaintiff atk be cite on the other side   Litt a   Owen vern atk Com  dig and it be observe that atk be between tenant for life and remainderman and  a opinion of the late Mr wilbraham be hand up to the court and read by the  judge Lord Mansfield after take time for consideration deliver the opinion of  the court all the old case lean in favour of the heir whatever be connect with  the freehold however remote as wainscot or picture in the wainscot go to the  heir there have be a relaxation to this rule in two instance first between  landlord and tenant for the sake of trade convenience and improvement as  marble chimney piece and erection for trade these be reasonable it be a  encouragement to the tenant and no hurt to the landlord the premise be leave  just as good as they be find second between tenant for life and a remainderman  here if a fire engine be put up which be very expensive a great improvement  and a benefit to the public it be but reasonable that it shall be take away  tenant for life have the same argument ambler er p for so do as tenant for  year have but I do not find any case except that of the cydermill where there  have be any relaxation between heir and executor here there be no particular  custom state for it nor be there any reason for it this particular case be  very strong that it shall not the salt pit be very valuable inheritance in  that county without the pan and the building the inheritance be little worth  they be a sort of accessary on which the full enjoyment of the principal  depend if they be give to the executor he will be at the expense of take they  away without be able to make any adequate advantage while it will be a heavy  loss to the heir such therefore can never be the intestate meaning from the  intention therefore from the circumstance of be affix to the freehold and also  from their have be erect by the owner of the inheritance we be of opinion that  the heir be entitle to they it have be a different question if this brine have  be let to a tenant and he have be at the expense of erect the saltwork and so  Mr Wilbraham think in the opinion hand to we and he appear to have be very  conversant upon the subject postea to the defendant from Mr pool ms see parson  v freeman next case