case lawton versus lawton December follow wake v hall App Cas see ware v  countess of Dudley l t in re de Falbe ware v tailor Ch a fire engine set up  for the benefit of a colliery by a tenant for life shall be consider as part  of his personal estate and go to the executor for the increase of asset in  favour of creditor the material question in the cause be whether a fire engine  set up for the benefit of a colliery by a tenant for life shall be consider as  personal estate and go to his executor or fix to the freehold and go to a  remainderman there be evidence read for the plaintiff a creditor of the tenant  for life to prove that the fire engine be worth to be sell three hundred and  fifty pound and that it be customary to remove they and that in building of  shed for secure the engine they leave hole for the end of timber to make it  more commodious for removal and that they be very can able of be carry from  one place to another note it appear from the answer of Robert Lawton the  remainderman that the tenant for life have erect a building which be cover in  and that this building be mere for the use of the engine atkins that the  testator the counsel for the plaintiff say be dead great indebt and it will be  hard when he have be lie out his creditor money in erect this engine that they  shall not have the benefit of it but that the strict rule of law shall take  place Mr Wilbraham compare it to the case of a cyder mill which be let in very  deep into the ground and be certain fix to the freehold and yet Lord chief  baron comens at the assize at Worcester upon a action of trover bring by the  executor against the heir be of opinion that it be personal estate and direct  the jury to find for the executor note this case in all probability turn upon  a custom per Lord Mansfield in Lawton v Lawton cite in the note at the end of  this case of Lawton v Lawton evidence be produce on the part of the defendant  to show that the engine can be remove without tear up the soil and destroy the  brick work Mr clark of counsel for the defendant cite finch fol under the head  of distress and the case of Wortley Montague v sir James Clavering about two  year ago before Lord Hardwicke Lord chancellor this be a demand by a creditor  of Mr Lawton who set up the fire engine to have the fund for payment of debt  extend as much as possible it be true the court can construe the fund for  asset further than the law allow but they will do it to the utmost they can in  favour of creditor this bring on the question of the fire engine whether it  shall be consider as personal estate and consequent apply to the increase of  asset for payment of debt now it do appear in evidence that in its own nature  it be a personal movable chattel take either in part or in gross before it be  put up but then it have be insist that fix it in order to make it work be  proper a annexation to the freehold to be sure in the old case they go a great  way upon the annexation to the freehold and so long ago as Henry the seven  time the court of law construe even a copper and furnace to be part of the  freehold since that time the general ground the court have go upon of relax  this strict construction of law be that it be for the atkins benefit of the  public to encourage tenant for life to do what be advantageous to the estate  during their term what will have be hold to be waste in Henry the seven time  as remove wainscot fix only by screw and marble chimney piece be now allow to  be do copper and all sort of brew vessel can possible be use without be as  much fix as fire engine and in brew house especial pipe must be lie through  the wall and support by wall and yet notwithstanding this as they be lie for  the convenience of trade landlord will not be allow to retain they this be the  general rule consider how the case stand as to the engine which be now in  question atkins er p it be say there be two maxim which be strong for the  remainderman first that you shall not destroy the principal thing by take away  the accessary to it this be very true in general but do not hold in the  present case for the wall be not the principal thing as they be only shed to  prevent any injury that may otherwise happen to it second it have be say that  it must be deem part of the estate because it can subsist without it now  colliery former may be enjoy before the invention of engine and therefore this  be only a questionof majus and minus whether it be more or less convenient for  the colliery there be no doubt but the case will be very clear as between  landlord and tenant it be true the old rule of law have indeed be relax chief  between landlord and tenant and not so frequent between a ancestor and heir at  law or tenant for life and remainderman but even in these case it do admit the  consideration of public conveniency for determine the question I think even  between ancestor and heir it will be very hard that such thing shall go in  every instance to the heir atkins one reason that weigh with I be its be a mix  case between enjoy the profit of the land and carry on a species of trade and  consider it in this light it come very near the instance in brewhouse c of  furnace and copper the case too of a cyder mill between the executor and the  heir mention by Mr Wilbraham be extreme strong for though cyder be part of the  profit of the real estate yet it be hold by Lord chief baron comens a very  able commonlawyer that the cyder mill be personal estate notwithstanding and  that it shall go to the executor it do not differ it in my opinion whether a  shed over such a engine be make of brick or wood for it be only intend to  cover it from the weather and other inconvenience this be not the case between  a ancestor and a heir but a intermediate case as Lord Hobart call it between a  tenant for life and remainderman which way do the reason of the thing weigh  most between a tenant for life and a remainderman and the personal  representative of tenant for life or between a ancestor and his heir and the  personal representative of the ancestor why no doubt in favour of the former  and come near the case of a common tenant where the good of the public be the  material consideration which determine the court to construe these thing  personal estate and be like the case of emblements which shall go to the  executor and not to the heir or remainderman it be for the benefit of the  kingdom which be interest in the produce of corn and other grain and will not  suffer they to go to the heir it be very well know that little profit can be  make of coalmine without this engine and tenant for life will be discourage in  erect they if they must go from their representative to a remote remainderman  when the tenant for life may possible die the next day after the engine be set  up these reason of public benefit and convenience weigh great with I and be a  principal ingredient in my present opinion upon the whole I think this fire  engine ought to be consider as part of the personal estate of Mr Lawton and go  to the executor for the increase of asset and decree accord atkins er p re lib  b fol there be certain other engine fix upon salt work by the father of the  tenant for life the testator these engine be decree not to be the personal  estate of the testator the old and general rule of law seem to be that  whatever be fix to the freehold become part of it and can be take from it    Litt a bro waste pl cook case more Herlakendens case   a day v Bisbitch cro  Elizabeth cave v cave vern cull v Tuffnal bull n p but of late year there have  be two exception to this rule the first be between landlord and tenant the  latter of who may take away during the term all such chimney piece wainscot c  and all such thing necessary for trade as brew vessel copper fire engine cyder  mill c as he have himself put up or erect but such removal must be within the  term otherwise he will be consider as a trespasser the second exception be  between tenant for life or in tail and the reversioner or remainderman the  former may remove fire engine cyder mill copper c which he have erect and by  which he not only enjoy the profit of the estate but carry on a species of  trade and if he do not remove they in his lifetime they go to his executor the  rule however still stand as between the heir and executor pool case salk ex  part Quincy ante vol Dudley v ware Amb bull n p SC cite in Lawton v Lawton b r  easter Geo a action of trover be bring by the plaintiff as administrator of  Robert Lawton against the defendant for certain salt pan which be put into  which house in Cheshire the pan be bring in in piece the which house be of no  use without the pan nor be the brine of any use without they there be room for  the workman to walk round they within the building the pan be fix by brick and  mortar to the floor of the building and there be a furnace under it the  building have lodging room at the end of it which building with the pan let  for a week the question be whether these pan be to go to the executor or to  the heir the ancestor be seize in fee Lord Mansfield deliver the opinion of  the court all the old case and there be some to be find in the yearbooks lean  in favour of the heir and so rigid that if a tenant be to put up a wainscot or  picture let into the wainscot c he can not take they away there have be a  relaxation of two species of property the one between landlord and tenant as  marble chimney piece and thing which be necessary for trade c and in the  removal of these there be no hurt to the landlord the tenant say I leave the  premise just as I find they the other species in which there have be a  relaxation be between tenant for life and the remainderman as fire engine c  the tenant for life will not erect such thing unless they can go to his  executor but I can find any case except that about the cyder mill see above  where there have be any relaxation between the heir and executor that case  most probable turn upon a custom now consider the present case which be very  strong a salt brine in the county of Cheshire be a most valuable inheritance  but there be no enjoy the inheritance without the building and salt pan they  be of no use but for that purpose and the inheritance be of no value without  they to the executor they can be worth no more than old iron and oldbricks if  take away here the ancestor erect they at his own expense on his feesimple it  be impossible that he shall mean they to be sever at his death for they be  worth nothing to a executor and very valuable to the heir it will have be a  very different consideration if this salt brine have be let to a tenant who  have erect these pan there he may have say I be at the expense of erect they  and therefore my executor shall have they and I leave the estate as I receive  it therefore we be all of opinion they go to the heir judgement for the  defendant