
    Joseph Fairis v. Drury Walker.
    A cotton gin attached to the gears in the gin-house, on a cotton plantation, passes by a conveyance of the fee-simple of the land.
    Whatever is necessary to the full and free enjoyment of a free-hold, sold for agricultural purposes, and which is in any way attached to it, passes, as a fixture by a conveyance of the fee, although partaking of the nature of an. article used for a trade, or manufacture. Nimmons v. Moye, cited infra. ¡3.P.
    Tried before Mr. Justice O’Neall, at Fairfield, Spring Term, 1830.
    This was an action of trover for a cotton gin. The following is the report of the presiding Judge.
    The plaumff sold and conveyed his plantation to the defendant, arid, at the time of the sale, the gin was in the gin-house on the land, and attached to the, gears. In addition to evidence of these facts, there was other proof, which I thougrit very well Warranted the conclusion, that the plaintiff intended to sell, and tbeVi the defendant believed lie was buying the gin with the land. Bat as I was of opinion, that the gin was a fixture, and passed from the vendor to the vendee by the contract of sale of the freehold, and so charged the jury, it is unnecessary to report the evidence more particularly.
    What is such a fixture as passes with the freehold, has been a question of great difficulty. The rule on the subject as between the heir aud the executor, or between vendor and vendee, is more rigorous than between landlord and tenant, or the executor of a tenant for life and the remainderman. In relation to the former, all things which are necessary to the full and free enjoyment of the freehold, and which are in any way attached to it, are held to be fixtures, and pass with it. With regard to the other class, articles used for a trade, or manufacture, or for the temporary convenience of the occupant, and which may be detatíhéd from the freehold, without injuring it, are held not to be fixtures. What ought to be considered a fixture depends, I think, materially, upon the nature of the freehold sold. If a plantation, then all such things, attached to the land, which are usually, necessary, or are used in the management of a farm, would pass. If a freehold fitted up for a trade of a particular kind, or for manufactures, is sold to a person intending to follow the same business, then all the machinery necessary to the trade, or manufacture, so intended to be carried on, would pass. I therefore instructed the jury, that if they thought the cotton gin necessary to the full, aud free enjoyment of the freehold, sold for agricultural purposes, it passed to the defendant under the sale by plaintiff. — vide Nimnions v. Moye, decided at Columbia, in December, 1829, and 2 Kent’s Com. 378,-80.
    The jury found for the defendant; and the plaintiff now moved to set aside the verdict, for misdirection.
    553; vide 3 M‘G.
    C. Clarke, for the motion.
    B. M. Pearson, contra.
    
   Cólcock, J.

The Court concurs unanimously with the presiding Judge; qud as their views of the subject have been very fully expressed in the case of Nimmons v. Moye, which is referred to by him, as well as in several others, it would be a work of supererogation, again to travel over the ground. The „• , , . , ■ T- ■ , motion ror a new trial is dismissed.

Johnson, J. and Evans, J. concurred. 
      
       This case is not reported, and it is due to the Reporter to state, that he' has never been furnished with a copy of the decision. He is informed by the Clerk, that the papers were mislaid, or lost, in consequence of being carried into Court, at the argument of the present case. .R.
     