Holland v Hodgson
Whether an object is a fixture depends on the degree and the purpose of its annexation to the land.
Facts
The owner of a worsted mill mortgaged the mill to Holland. The mill contained more than 400 looms, which were fixed to the stone floor by nails driven through holes in their feet into wooden beams set in the floor. The looms could be removed easily without damage to the building. When the mill owner became bankrupt, his trustee in bankruptcy, Hodgson, claimed the looms as chattels, while the mortgagee claimed that they were fixtures and so part of the mortgaged land.
Legal principle
The court held that the looms were fixtures and passed with the land to the mortgagee. Blackburn J said that articles not otherwise attached to the land than by their own weight are not to be considered part of the land unless the circumstances show that they were intended to be part of it, while an article that is affixed to the land, even slightly, is to be considered part of the land unless the circumstances show that it was intended to remain a chattel. The burden of proof lies on the person who alleges that the object has a different character from that suggested by its degree of annexation. The looms were fixed in order to improve the mill as a mill, so they were fixtures.
Related cases on land, fixtures and chattels
- Berkley v Poulett (1976) 241 EG 911
- Bernstein of Leigh (Baron) v Skyviews & General Ltd [1978] QB 479
- Bocardo SA v Star Energy UK Onshore Ltd [2010] UKSC 35, [2011] 1 AC 380
- Botham v TSB Bank plc (1997) 73 P & CR D1
- Chelsea Yacht and Boat Co Ltd v Pope [2000] 1 WLR 1941
- D'Eyncourt v Gregory (1866) LR 3 Eq 382
- Elitestone Ltd v Morris [1997] 1 WLR 687
- Hamp v Bygrave (1983) 266 EG 720
Studying land law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
