Sir John Cross: On perusal of the deed it becomes clear that as against the assignees the slaves were attached to the land when the mortgage was made, casting on the assignees the burthen of proving the contrary. As to the 5 Geo. 3, it does not appear to me that the assignees have proved that the slaves were not registered: against the bankrupt it must be assumed they were, till the contrary be proved, it not laying in the mouth of the bankrupt to allege they were not duly registered; and the assignees represent him. Sir George Rose: The general impression of the profession is that slaves, like an estate pur autre vie, go to the executor for payment of debts, but for all other purposes are real property. Whether or not the slaves be in the reputed ownership does not altogether depend on whether they were chattels or real estate; the question in reputed ownership often is, not whether they be chattels, but, admitting that, whether they be such of which the possession draws along with it the reputation of ownership. (a) It has been determined by his Majesty in Council that slaves are chattels in St. Christopher's, Dalrymple's MS. vol. i. 75. And they are chattels in the Bahamas, Sheppard's Practice of St. Vin Ordered as prayed. (a) cent, 119. They are also chattels 1834. Ex parte RUCKER and others. In the matter of RUCKER and others. C. of R. May 26 & 29, 1834. Ex parte LLOYD.- In the matter of OGDEN. THIS was the petition of Lloyd and Co., bankers, and prayed the usual order in cases of equitable mortgage, A mortgage was for a sale of the premises, fixtures, and machinery mort made of pre mises and machinery, which included a steam-engine, gaged. Walmisley, being the sole owner of certain freehold &c. erected for premises, entered into partnership with Ogden, and Walmisley and Ogden thenceforth occupied the premises as cotton-spinners, and erected a steam-engine, &c. for the purposes of their joint trade. trade purposes, and fixed to the freehold; the mortgagors continued in possession: Held, 1st. the steam-engine might be removed; 2d, it was well mortgaged, and not in the reputed ownership. Ogden and Walmisley kept a banking account with the petitioners, and in 1822 owed them 1,8227. on the balance of such account; and on the 1st of June 1833 Ogden deposited with the petitioners the leases of certain leasehold premises, accompanied with a memorandum, which, after setting out a list of the title-deeds deposited, thus concluded:-"These papers are placed in the hands of Messrs. Jones, Lloyd, and Co., as security for what they may think fit to advance to Ogden and Walmisley." On the third of August 1822, Walmisley deposited with the petitioners a lease of a freehold piece of land, on which was situated a mill and other buildings; this deposit was accompanied by the following memorandum:"These deeds of the Canal Mill at Hallingwood are placed in the hands of Messrs. Lloyds and Co. as security for what they may think proper to advance to Ogden and Walmisley, by Charles Walmisley; the buildings alone are insured for upwards of 2,000l., machinery, &c., 2,000l. more." On the 16th of November 1833 a fiat issued against Ogden and Walmisley. When the fiat issued there was owing to the petitioners 2,7777. on the balance of the banking account. The petition prayed that the petitioners might be declared equitable mortgagees of the premises, and of the mill and steam-engine, boilers, steam pipes, main shafting, and principal mill-gearing and fixtures in the mill and buildings, &c. By agreement, the property in dispute was sold, and the proceeds awaited the decision of the Court. Several contradictory affidavits were filed, as to whether the landlord was generally owner of the steam-engines, &c. in that neighbourhood, and as to whether the particular engines in question could be removed without injury to the freehold. The most precise of these was by James Drow of Manchester, appraiser and auctioneer, who deposed that he had been a valuer of machinery in cotton and other mills for twenty years; that he sold the steam-engine, gearing, and gas apparatus at the Canal Mill, and that he was present part of the time when it was removed by the purchaser; that he carefully examined the situation and manner in which the steamengine stood, and it could be very readily removed without injury to the freehold; that it was the invariable practice in Manchester and the neighbourhood, in all cases when buildings, steam-engines, and other things are erected for the purposes of trade, for the tenant to remove them at the end of his tenancy, or for the landlord to buy them from the tenant; that in almost all cases the steam-engines in Manchester and the neighbourhood can be removed without material damage to the freehold; that the steam-engine at the Canal Mill was put up in the following manner, there was a large stone put into each wall, which was of brick, an aperture was left in each wall over cach large stone, then there was a bed cut into each stone fully the depth of the entablature plate or beam, the ends or bearing parts of this entablature plate were put into those beds, and hot lead poured to fill the crevice or vacant 1834. Ex parte In the matter of OGDEN. 1834. Ex parte In the matter of OGDEN. parts, to keep it firm in its resting on those stones; that the weight of the walking beam rests entirely upon this entablature and a cast-iron centre pillar, which rests on the stone foundation, put in for the engine but not fixed to the freehold; that the engine could be very easily removed by raising the entablature plate with a screw jack, and by that means the end of the entablature plate or beam raised out of the bed cut into the stones, and then lowered down by common blocks without any injury to the building, and without disturbing or injuring the stones in the least degree; that the building and stones must necessarily have been erected before the steamengine was put up; that it was customary for the owners of cotton mills in Manchester and the neighbourhood to erect the mill, and for the tenant to put up the steam-engine. The bankrupts, being owners of the building and steam-engine, let different compartments of the building to different persons whose business required machinery driven by a steam-engine; these persons usually furnished their own machines. All these machines were worked by the bankrupts' steam-engine, which communicated with the different parts of the building by means of long shafts, the lengths of which were composed of different pieces not otherwise connected than by cog wheels, some of these lengths of the shafts being at right angles to others. Mr. Swanston and Mr. Mylne for the petition: The mortgagees claim the steam-engine and the works attached, down to what is technically designated the first motion, that is, what is generally understood by the steamengine itself exclusive of any machinery it works. They also claim the gas apparatus. Excluding all considerations as to bankruptcy, and viewing the transaction as one between mortgagor and In Stewart v. Lomb, 1 Brod. & Bing. 506, the jury found that a mill, mortgaged together with the land, was not a fixture; yet it was held that a creditor of the mortgagor could not take it in execution, though the mortgagor had remained in possession. Winn v. Ingilby, 5 Barn. & Ald. 625, decided that fixtures in a house were not liable to be seised in execution under a fieri facias, the house being in the possession of the person against whom the execution issued. In Colegrave v. Dias Santos, 2 Barn. & Cres. 76, the owner sold a freehold house. No mention was made in the conveyance of fixtures, nevertheless they were held to be passed; and even if they had not, yet the owner, after giving up possession, could not maintain an action of trover. But the assignees contend, that, bankruptcy having intervened, the machinery, and some of those things which the petitioner alleges to be fixtures, were in the reputed ownership of the bankrupt. But the doctrine of reputed ownership has no application to fixtures, nor to such chattels as are subject to a custom of being let, and the possession of which does not necessarily carry the reputation of ownership. These propositions were established in the time of Lord Hardwicke, and have been strengthened by a series of decisions down to Coombs v. Beaumont, 5 Barn. & Adol. 72, and Rufford v. Bishop, 5 Russ. 346. In Hubbard v. Bagshaw, 4 Sim. 326, the owner of a cotton mill, in which there was a steam engine, boilers, &c. mortgaged the whole, but remained in possession VOL. I. K K |