
    Marvin Marcy versus Thomas Darling.
    A building erected by an individual on land belonging to the government, he having no right in the soil, is, as between individuals, personal property.
    So held in the caseof a bathing-house erected on piles driven into the bed of a navigable river below low-water mark.
    This was a bill to redeem an undivided moiety of a bathing-house situated on the northeasterly side of canal bridge. The house is erected on piers driven into the mud below low-water mark in Charles river. The bill alleges that the moiety in question was mortgaged by one Farnum to the defendant, and that the equity of redemption was taken and sold on execution and purchased by the plaintiff. The proceedings set forth are according to the mode of levying on a right in equity tti redeem real estate.
    The defendant demurred to the bill, on the ground that the bathing-house was a personal chattel and not real estate, and that Farnum had no such right or interest as could be taken and sold on execution as stated in the bill.
    
      Field and B. Sumner,
    in support of the demurrer, cited Wells v. Banister, 4 Mass. R. 514 ; Doty v. Gorham, 5 Pick. 487 ; Badlam v. Tucker, 1 Pick. 399.
    
      F. Dexter and Buttrick, for the plaintiff.
   The Court afterward expressed their opinion, that as it does not appear by the bill that the owner of the bathing-house had any right or interest in the soil or flats into which the piles were driven, on which the building stands, but that the same belonged to the public, the house was personal property and not real estate ; so that the sale of the equity of redemption was wholly void.

Bill dismissed. 
      
       See Holbrook v. Baker, 5 Greenleaf, 309; Story’s Comm, on Bailments, (2d edit.) 238 and notes; Wheeler v. M'Farland, 10 Wendell, 318; Ferguson v. Lee, 9 Wendell, 258; Pomeroy v. Smith, 17 Pick. 85. See the provisions for attaching mortgaged personal estate, in Revised Stat. c 90, § 78, 79
     