but the table in question was eighteen feet long, ten feet wide, nine inches thick, and weighed thirtythree tons. These iron tables thus became part of the structures supporting them and imbedded in the ground, all portions of which were necessary for their proper use. The fact that they rested by their own weight on the brick-work, and could not be removed without materially disturbing it, did not make them any less a part of the structures placed in the factory. The structures as a whole became a part of the realty."

In Kimball v. Masters, etc., of Grand Lodge of Masons, id., the court said: "The defendant leased certain rooms in its building to Copeland & Tarbell, who placed therein two show cases. The base of the cases to the height of three feet was occupied by drawers; above were rows of shelves with doors in front about seven feet high; and mirrors four feet wide and seven feet high placed in recesses and forming part of the cases. One case had one mirror and the other two. A cornice extended along the entire top, and there was a heavy moulding at the bottom of the cases. They stood upon the marble floor and formed no part of the permanent finish of the room; but the upper portion of each case was fastened to the wall by nails. The room was large, and one of the cases was thirty feet and the other thirty-nine feet in length." "It is evident from the description of these cases and from the manner in which they were placed in the room, taken in con

nection with the obvious purpose for which they were to be used, that they formed no part of the realty, but were mere chattels or articles of furniture belonging to the tenant. Guthrie v. Jones, 108 Mass. 191; Towne v. Fiske, 127 id. 125; S. C., 34 Am. Rep. 353, and note, 354; Park v. Baker, 7 Allen, 78; Wall v. Hines, 4 Gray, 256."

use.

In Southbridge Savings Bank v. Stevens Tool Co., id., the court said: "The defendant having purchased machinery, including this drill, to be used in the manufacture of a patented machine, made an arrangement with Stevens to hire his shop; and, in anticipation of its occupancy, Stevens was authorized by the defendant to remove and did remove the machinery to his shop and set it up ready for In view of the character of the drill, the purpose for which and the manner in which it was annexed, we are of opinion that it became a part of the realty as between mortgagor and mortgagee. It was a large, heavy machine, from six to eight feet high, having a base of cast iron, and weighed about a ton. It was firmly fastened to the floor, and was supported by braces attached to the flooring above. It was adapted and designed for use in a machine shop, was purchased by the defendant as a part of the machinery to be used in the manufacture of the patented machine; and it is found that this or a similar drill would be necessary for a machine shop designed to manufacture the patented machine. Having thus been placed on the premises by direction of the defendant, it passed to the

plaintiff under its mortgage from Stevens as a part of the realty." Read in this connection McKeage v. Hanover Fire Ins. Co., 81 N. Y. 38; Ward v. Kilpatrick, N. Y. Ct. App., 12 Rep. 53; Korbe v. Barbour, 23 Alb. L. J. 477; Ex parte Sheen, id. 211.

In Allerton v. Chicago, U. S. Circuit Court, Northit was held that under a legislative power to "reguern District of Illinois, 20 Am. L. Reg. (N. S.) 473, late the management" of a business, a city may exact a license fee from a street railway company, this being a police regulation. The Legislature had authorized the licensing of "hackmen, draymen, omnibus drivers, cabmen, expressmen, and all others pursuing like occupations." The court said: "Omnibuses may be licensed. They may pass over the same streets as those occupied by the horse railways, and they may carry passengers in the same manner. The only distinction which can be called substantial between the two classes of occupation is, that one carriage goes upon iron rails, in a regular track, with wheels, and the other carriage goes with wheels upon the ordinary street way. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has held that these street railway carriages are of a like nature as omnibuses, and there can be no doubt, I think, of the right of the city to demand a license from all omnibus drivers," This is consistent with Frankford and Phila. Pass. Co. v. City of Philadelphia, 58 Penn. St. 119; Johnson v. Philadelphia, 60 id. 445; and Chicago

etc.

Packing and Provision Co. v. City of Chicago, 88 Ill. 221; but opposed to Mayor v. Second Ave. R. Co., 32

N. Y. 261. See "Ordinances - reasonable and unreasonable," ante, 84; and upon the power of regulation, Cronin v. People, 82 N. Y. 318; S. C., 22 Alb. L. Jour. 430.

In Appeal of Phillipsbury Savings Bank, Pennsylvania Supreme Court, April 1, 1881, 10 W. N. C. 265, it was held, where in order to avoid a defense of usury to a mortgage which was to be given to a bank as security for a loan made by it, the mortgage was executed to an employee of the bank as mortgagee and by him assigned to the bank as a purchaser, no consideration passing either to or from the employee, that the employee was not thereby constituted an agent of the bank so as to affect it with any knowledge that he might acquire during the transaction of a prior unrecorded mortgage. The court said: "Express or direct notice of the prior incumbrance is a distinct and positive knowledge of its existence, acquired by the subsequent incumbrancer or his agent, not on some former occasion, or through the medium of vague reports, emanating from persons not interested in the property, but obtained in the course of the transaction in which the security is taken, from persons whose situation and interests are calculated to inspire confidence in their statements. Implied, or as it is sometimes called, constructive notice, is nothing more than evidence of actual notice, when the presumption thereof is satisfactorily warranted by the facts, or made necessary by considerations of public pol

sinated because he was disposed to get possession of his property. "Squatter sovereignty" was the title by which the murderers claimed as against the rightful owner, and he was deprived of life by a systematic plan, much as landlords and their agents in Ireland have been more recently dealt with. A death-bed confession and detailed statement of these ancient landleaguers, as to their origination, was made several years afterward, by one of them, known to the writer; but it was extra-judicial and of no avail except to direct attention to the individual who fired the fatal shot, and who was then alive.

The next and more extensive outbreak against the law of property and rights of ownership occurred in the county of Albany about the year 1842, and the two or three succeeding years, and was known in the history of our State as the Helderbergh war, or as the Anti-Rent war.

The Van Rensselaer title, and the Livingston title, also, to large tracts of land in Albany, Rensselaer, Columbia and some other counties, were as perfect as the title to real estate could be. These lands had been held more than a century by the owners, no one disputing the title. They were held under letters patent from the British crown. The owner preferred leasing the land for a long term rather than sell it, and hundreds of persons were willing to occupy under a leasehold contract with the land owner. He was not bound to sell they were not bound to lease; but by mutual agreement leases were executed on terms very favorable to the tenants. But after the lapse of years, and when the rental in the aggregate had equalled the value of the land, these tenants, ignoring their contracts, came to the conclusion that they ought to own the land in fee; forgetful of the important fact that they had had the exclusive use of the land, as an equivalent for such rental.

A spirit of hostility to the right of ownership, and of vindictiveness toward men of property, had been developing rapidly; more especially in the counties before named. It is now about forty years since the first organized resistance to the payment of rent occurred. This was on the Van Rensselaer tract, where civil process could not be executed, for which reason the military power was invoked and the Helderbergh war (as it was called) resulted. Gen. Stephen Van Rensselaer, the old patroon, was celebrated for his leniency toward his tenantry, and after his decease, which occurred in 1839, his son, Gen. S. Van Rensselaer, Jr., who succeeded as landlord, was equally generous. But it was evident that this hostility toward land owners of large tracts, was then (in the name of Anti-Rentism) what Land-Leagueism is now. Combinations were formed, embodying thousands of persons, particularly in Rensselaer, Columbia, Delaware and Sullivan counties. Crafty and designing men were appointed officers and managers- - funds were collected systematically-legal talent (always to be had, unfortunately, for a quid pro quo) was secured, and that movement, which in its inception seemed but a small affair, ripened into a formidable assault upon the laws of the land and the rights of property.

In Columbia county, and especially in the interior, where the occupants of the soil were principally tenants, the Anti-Rent organization was thorough. The leaders had names given to them by the "rank and file," by which names they were known, and when any overt acts of violence were about to be performed, or any of their public meetings held, the members were disguised, wearing masks, calico dresses, etc., etc. The sheriff of the county, while attempting to serve legal documents, was captured, his papers taken from him by force and destroyed. It was about this time that information came to the city of Hudson that an official, attempting to perform his duty, had been wantonly killed. Of course the excitement was inteuse.

It was known that there had been a gathering of disguised and armed men, at Smoky Hollow, a locality about six miles from Hudson, on that day. With commendable promptness, Theodore Miller, Esq., district attorney, and now judge of the Court of Appeals, accompanied by the sheriff of the county, N. C. Miller, Esq., and Joseph D. Monell, Esq., a distinguished citizen of Hudson, took a carriage and proceeded to the place where the anti-renters were assembled, and to the scene of the alleged murder. On their way they met deputy sheriff Sedgwick and another person, who joined them. On their arrival, they found that the anti-rent meeting had ended and many of them had retired; but of those who remained, was the head center, Boughton, who was known by the euphonius sobriquet, "Big Thunder," and with him was the second in command, who was known as "Little Thunder." These leaders in villainy were immediately arrested, but attempting to escape, got into a morass, were caught, put into the carriage and that night were safely lodged in jail at Hudson, despite their thundering.

As might be expected the excitement was very great. The Indians (as the anti-renters chose to call themselves) were counted by hundreds or by thousands in the aggregate, and threatened to burn the city if their leaders were not set at liberty. Knowing the desperate character of these men, who thus threatened the city, the citizens were greatly excited and justly alarmed. A delegation consisting of the mayor, the district attorney, and other prominent men, went to Albany and laid the case before Gov. Bouck. A meeting of the State officers was immediately called at the adjutant-general's office, for consultation. As the emergency admitted of no delay, it was determined to send a military force forthwith to protect the city aud its inhabitants. Orders were immediately issued directing the Albany Burgesses Corps and the Emmett Guards, two splendid companies, to repair at once to Hudson, and on the 25th December, 1844, they marched from Albany. A company of mounted men from New York were ordered to report at Hudson immediately, to watch the movements of insurgents, outside the city. Two field-pieces accompanied the Albany troops. Orders were issued to the commandants of uniformed companies at Newburgh, Poughkeepsie, Kingston and Catskill, to be in readiness to march to Hudson at a moment's warning. Hudson was virtually under martial law. The field-pieces were in position, sentinels posted, pickets established, and the soldiers, who were not on duty, quartered at the most convenient places, ready for service. Barges lying at the wharves were occupied as 'quarters," Adjutant-General A. C. Niven, superintending in person. Thorough preparation prevented any demonstration by the insurgents, and in due time the troops were removed.

Meantime the Court of Oyer and Terminer was held, that is to say, in the summer of 1845, and "Big Thunder" and others, were indicted. Judge Amasa J. Parker, then recently appointed circuit judge, and who still survives as an honor to the legal profession, presided. The trial occupied two weeks. The district attorney before alluded to (now Judge Miller of the Court of Appeals), assisted by the Hon. John Van Buren, attorney-general, conducted the prosecution. The prisoners were defended by Ambrose L. Jordan, Esq., afterward the attorney-general, and James Storm, Esq. The jury failed to agree. The case was again tried in September, before Hon. J. W. Edmonds, circuit judge. "Big Thunder" was found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for life.

But the seed had been sown broadcast and in Delaware county it matured rapidly. The "Indians," as the anti-renters called themselves, were very numerous, independent of their allies in other counties. While the trials were progressing in Columbia county in

the summer of 1845, measures were taken in the county of Delaware to collect rents, and one Moses Earle, a tenant residing in Andes, refusing to pay, the necessary papers were put into the hands of Osman N. Steele, undersheriff, to collect the rents. After the necessary preliminary steps, a day was fixed for the sale of property on the premises. The under-sheriff was accompanied by the attorney for the landlord and two or three other persons, but on arriving there he was confronted by about 200 Indians in disguise, armed with rifles, and as he attempted to ride into the field where the property was on which he had levied, he was shot and killed by them. The greatest excitement followed this assassination in open day and in the presence of hundreds. It now became a struggle between the lawabiding citizens and those who had determined to resist the law. Land-League-ism or the laws which provided for and protected ownership, was to prevail. Gov. Wright, who had succeeded Gov. Bouck, declared the county in a state of insurrection, and a battalion of troops was marched to aid the civil authorities and to preserve order. This was in August, 1845. At the inquest on the body of the under-sheriff, sufficient facts were ascertained as to the guilty leaders, and at a court held soon thereafter, about 250 persons were indicted; some for murder, and the greater number for minor offenses connected with the outbreak. Many of those indicted were arrested, and several jails were hastily built of logs for their confinement until they should be tried.

Among those indicted for murder was a man named John Van Steenberg; and another person named Edward O'Conner. Van Steenberg fled and was concealed by his anti-rent friends in Sullivan county, but his whereabouts were ascertained and he was arrested. There were hundreds arrested and in prison awaiting trial. It was all-important that there should be no delay, and on the 22d September, 1845, the court of Oyer and Terminer opened at Delhi, the court-house and jails being protected by an armed police.

Judge Amasa J. Parker presided. Delhi had been his place of residence before his appointment as judge. His professional life had been spent there. He had worn the judicial ermine but a year and a half, and now he was called upon to preside in cases involving life and death, arising withal out of circumstances involving not only the peace of society, but the legal rights of every person. But his official obligations required his efficient action, and well and faithfully did he meet the exigency. After a lucid and impartial charge to the grand jury he gave notice that however much time it might occupy, he would continue the session of the court until every indictment that might be found should be disposed of and the prisoners relieved.

The people were represented by J. A. Hughston, district-attorney; by J. Van Buren, attorney-general, and by Samuel Sherwood, Esq.

The counsel for the prisoners were Samuel Gordon, of Delhi, Mitchell Sanford, Esq., of Schoharie, Samuel Bowne, of Otsego, and others.

Van Steenberg was first tried and convicted of murder. O'Conner was next tried with a like result, and Judge Parker sentenced them to be hung on the 29th November then next. Others were convicted of felony and sentenced to State prison for life, some for a less term, and some others pleaded guilty and sentence was suspended. The criminal calendar was cleared, the temporary prisons torn down, the law was fully vindicated, order restored, and Land-Leagueism completely demolished.

In Sullivan county, where leasehold lands were located, the anti-rent organization was thoroughly perfected. Officers were chosen, tenants were assessed, funds raised, and every arrangement made to repudi

ate, even to the exercise of physical force. The agents of the land-owners, and all who sympathised with them, lived in continual danger of harm to their persons or property. In fact, it was unsafe for any one of this class to be seen in that locality, even in the daytime.

The title of the owners of the lands was held under a patent known as the Hardenbergh patent, granted by Queen Ann on the 20th April, 1708. A portion of these lands, on partition, in 1749, fell to Chancellor Livingston, and from him, by descent, to the present owners, whose title had never been questioned.

But to make their hostility to the Livingston title, under which they had taken leases, more plausible, they claimed that the Hardenbergh patent, under which the landlords held, did not cover the anti-rent locality, and by a cunningly devised scheme they procured a deed to their "head-center" from the trustees of the adjoining town of Rochester, in Ulster county. In 1703, Queen Ann had granted a patent to the trustees of Rochester for an extensive tract, the western boundary of which was described as the Great Mountains, commonly called the Blue Hills." As the Hardenbergh patent was granted five years afterward, and its eastern boundary was the Rochester patent, it was all important to locate the Blue Hills, which the landleaguers did in such a manner as to cut off the landowners, provided they (the land-leaguers) established a valid title to the many thousand acres affected by the location they contended for.

A series of litigations now ensued, and the court calendars indicated a settled purpose on the part of landlords and tenants to carry on the warfare to the last resort.

In the State courts litigations were had, terminating in the Court of Appeals and resulting in favor of the landlords. In the United States Court a suit was instituted to settle the question of boundary line between the Rochester and Hardenbergh patents, and to determine the claim of the anti-renters to the premises, claimed also by the landlords. The case was tried before Hon. Samuel Nelson, circuit judge in the city of New York, in April, 1853, and decided in favor of the landlords. From which time Anti- Rentism and Land-Leagueism, with their excrescences, have existed only in memory. The leaders succumbed. The law of the land regulating ownership was established, and the rights of property vindicated.

Subsequently the lands were offered for sale, and many of the occupants purchased and are a law-abiding people, who formerly not only threatened life, but executed their threats.

Of those who were professionally in the litigations but few survive. Judge A. J. Parker, Judge Theodore Miller, A. C. Niven, John Sherwood, Esq., yet survive. Spencer and Hogeboom and Wright and Taber and Jordan and S. J. Wilkin are gone. C. V. R. Ludington, Esq., and Hon. T. R. Westbrook (now of Supreme Court), who were of counsel for the anti-renters, are yet alive.

But the agrarian spirit still lives, and it is susceptible of proof that an extensive, secret organization exists, holding doctrines of the most dangerous, levelling character. The element which is now developing, under the different names of Nihil-ism, Commune-ism, Social-ism, Agrarian-ism, and LandLeague-ism, is virtually of the same type with AntiRent-ism of former days, and might properly be classified as an aggregation of wickedness, under the synonym of devil-ism. All honest men should combine to resist this diabolic spirit, the tendency of which is to overturn the foundations of society and of good government as well.

MONTICELLO, N. Y., June, 1881.

A. C. NIVEN.