Leigh v Taylor
Valuable tapestries attached to a wall so that they could be displayed and enjoyed as tapestries remained chattels.
Facts
A tenant for life of a mansion house hung valuable tapestries in the drawing room. To display them, strips of wood were nailed to the walls, canvas was stretched over the strips, and the tapestries were fastened to the wood with tacks. Mouldings were then placed around them. When the tenant for life died, the question arose whether the tapestries passed with the house to the person next entitled to the land, or belonged to the tenant for life's estate as chattels.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that the tapestries were chattels. The purpose of their attachment was not to improve the house permanently, but to enable the tapestries to be displayed and enjoyed as tapestries, and this was the only practicable way of hanging them. The case shows that the purpose of annexation is more important than the degree of annexation, and that the courts take into account the way in which ornamental objects can sensibly be displayed.
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.
