
    WM. M’KENNA VS. LEROY HAMMOND.
    'The running gear.of a Cotton Gin, isa fixture attached to the freehold; and •the administrator has no right to sell it.
    
      Before Mr. Justice Butler, at Lancaster, Spring Term, 1837.
    The presiding Judge reported the case as follows :
    Trover for the running gear of a cotton gin ; to wit, the large post and horizontal which works under the house, and the other machinery that is moved by them.
    The case may be stated thus : When the intestate died, a gin house and running gear were on his premises ; his administrator, supposing the running gear to form part of the personal estate, sold them to the plaintiff, together with a threshing machine that was moved by them ; the plaintiff also rented the land of the administrator, and used the machinery for threshing out wheat. Before the expiration of the year, the land was sold by order of the Court of Equity, and the defendant became the purchaser at Commissioner’s sale, and took a deed in common form. When he took possession of his land, he found the running gear and threshing machine in and attached to the house. Plaintiff sent for them, and defendant let him have the threshing machine, but refused to let him, plaintiff, take down the running gear; contending that they were affixed to, and passed with, the freehold. There was s.ome evidence which, perhaps, I should notice.
    
      The post of the large wheel was let into a block, which was morticed in the joists of the house. This block was confined by pins on each side of it, but not driven through. The floor was laid down over the block, loose, not nailed. During the time plaintiff had the premises, he repaired some part of the wheel and put it back.
    I held that plaintiff could not recover the running gear above described ; holding them to be fixtures, and to have passed under the deed conveying to defendant the freehold. They were certainly a part of the freehold at the death of the intestate; and if so, the administrator had no control over them. He had no right to sever them from the freehold and sell them. He did not sever them himself, but sold them, without an order from the Ordinary, while they were attached to the house. The defendant found them attached to the house when he bought the land.
    Our courts have decided expressly, that a cotton gin passes with the freehold, and I think the running gear which moves the gin, much more .of a fixture.
    The plaintiff appealed.
   Curia, per

Evans, J.

The only question in this case was, whether the running gear, the subject of this action, was a fixture appurtenant to the ■freehold. If it was, then the administrator had no right to sell it, and it passed with the freehold to the defendant. This question, I think, is fully settled by the case of Nimmons vs. Moye, decided in December, 1829, in Columbia. As that case is not reported, I will state the facts as contained in the brief. “ Wm. Nimmons, the plaintiff, purchased from George Dunbar, administrator of the estate of Henry Y. Patrick, deceased, the running gear of a cotton gin, belonging to the estate of Patrick, in January or February, 1828, .and was told he might take it into possession as soon as he pleased. The running gear was attached and fastened, as running gear usually ,is, to the gin house, on one of the plantations of the .deceased, and yet remains in that situation. . The plaintiff says it was not convenient for him to take away the gear at that time, and in March, 1828, .the Commissioner in Equity, by an order of that court, sold the land upon .which the gin house stands, with the appurtenances to the same belonging, at public sale, and Allen Moye, the defendant, became the purchaser, and received Commissioner’s titles. The defendant, previous to the sale of the land, received no notice that the gear had been sold by the administrator, and upon the purchase of the land, he went into possession under the Commissioner’s title ; the running gear of the gin being still attached to the house as aforesaid.”

.On the hearing of this case in the Appeal Court, all the judges were of opinion, that the running gear was a fixture attached to the freehold, and therefore the plaintiff could derive no title from the administrator.

The principle upon which that case was decided, is, that whatsoever is erected upon land as a means of enjoying it, is a fixture ; but whatever is intended for the purpose of carrying on a trade which has no necessary connexion with the use of the land, is a mere chattel, and belongs to the administrator. And it was on the authority of the reasons of this case, that it was held in Faris vs. Walker, 1 Bail. 540, that a cotton gin was a fixture, and passed with the freehold.

I do not perceive any legal distinction between these cases and the one under consideration. In all essential particulars, they are the same. The fact that Hammond knew of the sale to McKenna, if admitted, cannot vary the case, if the administrator from whom the plaintiff bought had no title.

The motion is dismissed.

Gantt, Richardson, Earle, and Butler, JJ. concurred.  