D’Eyncourt v Gregory (1866) LR 3 Eq 382
CHATTELS – FIXTURES – DEGREE OF ANNEXATION – SETTLEMENTS – ITEMS INTEGRAL TO ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF PROPERTY
Facts
A testator was a life tenant of certain estates, upon which he had erected and furnished a mansion-house and bequeathed all the tapestry, marbles, statues, framed pictures and glasses, contained therein to be enjoyed as heir-looms by the persons who, according to the terms of his will, would be entitled to the estates in strict settlement.
After the testator’s death, A became life tenant of the estates, and on A’s death the settled estates devolved to B. Under a shifting clause in T’s will, however, C become entitled to the heirlooms specified in the will. The question arose as to which of those articles would pass to C as chattels and which, by contrast, were to be considered fixtures of the property itself.
Issues
The Court were called upon to consider the distinction between fixtures and chattels, particularly where, as was the case in D’Eyncourt, some of the items in question were capable of being removed without causing damage to the property itself, or else (in the case of the marbles) rested entirely upon their own weight.
Decision/Outcome
The statues, marbles, tapestry, statues and framed pictures and glasses all fell within the definition of fixtures and so could not pass to C by operation of the shifting clause. In arriving at this conclusion the court confirmed that an item may still constitute a fixture even when not physically attached to the property, or where that attachment could be easily removed. This would be more likely, as was found to be the case here, where the items were ‘strictly and properly part of the architectural design’ of the property (at 394 per Romilly MR).
Updated 21 March 2026
This article accurately describes the decision in D’Eyncourt v Gregory (1866) LR 3 Eq 382 and the legal principles it established. The case remains good law and continues to be cited as an important authority on the distinction between fixtures and chattels, particularly regarding the “purpose of annexation” test and the relevance of architectural design.
Subsequent case law has refined rather than displaced these principles. The leading modern authority is the Court of Appeal decision in Elitestone Ltd v Morris [1997] 1 WLR 687 (HL), which restated and developed the two-limb test for fixtures (degree of annexation and purpose of annexation). The purpose test, which this article explains with reference to architectural design, remains central to how courts approach fixture disputes. D’Eyncourt v Gregory is routinely cited alongside Holland v Hodgson (1872) LR 7 CP 328 and Elitestone in land law textbooks and judgments.
Readers should note that the law of fixtures in the context of settlements is now largely of historical significance given the restrictions on creating new strict settlements under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, which effectively ended the creation of new settlements under the Settled Land Act 1925. However, the core fixture principles established in this case remain fully applicable in modern property law contexts, including mortgage disputes, landlord and tenant matters, and conveyancing.
