Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only.

Dixon v Fisher

382 words (2 pages) Case Summary

16th Jul 2019 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): UK Law

Dixon v Fisher (1843) 5 D 775

The definition of chattel and fixture with regards to affixing machinery to the land


John Dixon was the owner and operator of several coal mines, some of which were owned outright by him and others were held under various leases. In his will, Mr Dixon made a provision of £4,000 for his daughter. On his death, the daughter refused the provision and sought a share of the estate as his child as against her two brothers. After time, one brother died and the remaining brother continued the claim. It was contended that the machinery used in the mines, although this was firmly affixed to the land for the purposes of its use should form part of the divisible estate and should not pass directly to the brother as was the case for items that formed part of the land. The court ordered a survey of the machinery which found that much of it could only be removed a great expense but that it was however custom for the machinery to be removed once its purpose ended. It was found that other machinery was easily replaceable.


The issue in this circumstance was whether the machinery attached to the land for its use formed part of the land and therefore was not part of the divisible estate and whether a different position arose in respect of the machinery that could be replaced easily.


It was held that the question must be addressed in relation to each of the types of machinery and that where the machinery was firmly attached to the land, the fact that it was for a particular purpose and would be removed when the purpose ended did not prevent it from being part of the land. However, the position differed for property that could easily be replaced. This was less likely to form part of the land because its affixation was less significant and was therefore more likely to form part of the divisible estate. In a more modern context therefore the items firmly affixed, because they were in place for the use of the land, were a fixture and those which were not firmly affixed, despite their use, were more likely to be considered chattels. The size of the daughter’s share in the estate was calculated accordingly.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

Related Content

Jurisdictions / Tags

Content relating to: "UK Law"

UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas.

Related Articles