
    Pillow v. Love.
    ['Fixtures.]
   Pee, Cueiah.

The question in this case is, whether a still, set up on the lands of the lessor by the lessee, could be seized under a fi. fa. by the sheriff as the property of the lessee, and be sold as his. As between a creditor and lessee it certainly may. The decisions in modern times have gone far to consider fixtures, made for the purpose of carrying on a man’s trade, as not coming under the idea of fixtures becoming a part of the freehold. As between landlord and tenant, there is the same disposition. And even as between heir and executor, * modern notions are far more liberalized and accommodated to the ordinary purposes of those who carry on business than formerly. 4 Reports, Herlohenden's case, Salk. 368. Judgment accordingly.

See Degraffenreid v. Scruggs, 4 Hum. 451; Childress v. Wright, 2 Cold. 350; King’s Digest, 6414, 6597, 11,833.  