Geo Home 1877. testimony of the two main witnesses touching mateJanuary Term. rial facts. It was the peculiar province of the jury to deduce the facts involved in this conflict. They did Ins. Co. so, and the judge who presided at the trial concurred with them in their finding. The law was applied by adm'x. the jury to the facts under the direction of the court, in which direction, as has already been shown, there V. Kinnier's was no error. The rules which govern applications for new trials, based upon the ground that the verdict of the jury is against law and the evidence, are well settled by numerous decisions of this court. They are well stated by Judge Christian in a late case. Blosser v. Harshberger, 21 Gratt. 214. Upon the whole, I am of opinion that there is no error in the judgment of the corporation court for the city of Lynchburg, and that the same should be affirmed with damages. CHRISTIAN, ANDERSON and STAPLES, Js., concurred in the opinion of Burks, J. MONCURE, P., dissented. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. Richmond. ANDREWS, ORDWAY & GREEN v. THE AUDITOR, fc. THE AUDITOR v. ANDREWS, ORDWAY & GREEN. February 1. By agreement between the United States government and the owner of land, the government erects buildings on the land, intended to be and actually used by operatives employed by the government in dressing stone to be employed in the erection of public buildings at Washington; and under the agreement the government has the right to remove the buildings-HELD: 1. The buildings are personal property. 2. The buildings being the property of the United States, the state 3. When buildings put up on the land of another are exempted by One of these cases was an appeal by the auditor of public accounts of the commonwealth of Virginia from a judgment of the circuit court of Chesterfield county, reversing a judgment of the county court, upon the application of Andrews, Ordway & Green, to have repaid to them taxes which had been assessed upon the buildings located upon lands owned by them, which buildings were the property of the United States government, and to have the same exempted from taxation. The other case was an application to the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus to the 1877. January Term. 1877. auditor to require him to repay the said taxes. The January Term. case is stated by Judge Christian in his opinion. Andrews, Ordway & Green V. Audit'r,&c Auditor V. Andrews, Green. F. W. Christian, for the petitioners. The Attorney General, for the auditor. CHRISTIAN, J. This case is before us upon a writ Ordway & of error to a judgment of the circuit court of Chesterfield county. The controversy arose out of a motion made by Andrews, Ordway & Green before the county court of Chesterfield for redress against an alleged erroneous assessment of taxes. The county court held the assessment against them lawful; but on appeal to the circuit court the judgment of the county court was reversed, and the appellants were relieved from the erroneous assessment complained of; and it was to this judgment, reversing the judgment of the county court, that a writ of error was awarded by one of the judges of this court. The question we have to determine arises upon the certificate of facts made by the court below, which certificate is as follows: In the matters of the motion of Andrews, Ordway & Green for redress against an erroneous assessment, the court doth certify that the following facts were proven: That R. S. Andrews, Albert Ordway and S. S. Green owned a tract of land lying opposite Rocketts, Richmond, in Manchester township, Chesterfield county, Virginia, containing twenty-one and three hundred and seventy-nine thousandths acres; that the said land and buildings thereon are assessed on the land book for 1873 at $29,650, and the whole thereof 1877. January Term. Andrews, Green V. V. Green. charged to Andrews, Ordway & Green; that the sum included in said assessment on account of buildings is $27,500; that of the said buildings only one-sixth in value belongs to Andrews, Ordway & Green; that the Ordway & rest of the buildings, amounting in value to five-sixths of the whole, were erected by the United States with Audit'r,&c the consent of Andrews, Ordway & Green, with the Auditor understanding that the said buildings were removable Andrews, by the United States. The said buildings were paid Ordway & for entirely by the United States, and are the property of the United States; they are used by the operatives and employees of the United States in dressing the granite to be used in the erection of certain public buildings in Washington, District of Columbia, for the use and accommodation of the state, war and navy departments of the United States government. That the said Andrews, Ordway & Green have not received and do not receive any compensation in any form for the use of their land in the erection of the said buildings by the United States; that for the superintendence of the work done in said buildings the said Andrews, Ordway & Green receive a certain percentage under contract; that the taxes assessed on the said land and all the buildings, which land and buildings are valued at $29,650, are as follows: While the amount involved in this case is insignificant, the question we have to determine is of the 1877. gravest importance, because it involves the respective January Term. rights and powers of the state and the Federal government, with respect to the highest prerogative of sovOrdway &ereignty-the power of taxation. Andrews, Green V. V. First, I have to remark that it must be taken upon Audit'r,&c the certificate of facts in the record as a concessum in Auditor the case that five-sixths of the buildings erected on the lands of Andrews, Ordway & Green were the property Ordway & of the United States, erected by that government for a Green. legitimate purpose, and under a contract to be removed at the pleasure of the government. Andrews, Under that contract they (the buildings) were not the property of the owner of the soil, and were no part of the real estate. It is a principle firmly settled by numerous decisions, that where a building is erected by one man, upon the land of another, by his permission, upon an agreement or understanding that it may be removed at the pleasure of the builder, it does not become a part of the real estate, but continues to be a personal chattel and the property of the person who erected it. 1 Wash. on Real Prop. p. 3, § 4; Osgood v. Howard, 6 Greenl. 452; Smith &c. v. Benson &c., 1 Hill's R. 176; Wills v. Bannister, 4 Mass. R. 514; Doty v. Gorham, 5 Pick. R. 487; Marcy v. Darling, 8 Pick. R. 283; Rogers v. Woodbury, 15 Pick. R. 156; Wall v. Hinds, 4 Gray R. 256; Barnes v. Barnes, 6 Vermont R. 388; Dulois v. Kelly, 10 Barb. R. 496, and Dame v. Dame, 38 New H. R. 429, and cases there cited, where the whole subject is elaborately discussed and numerous decisions of many states in the Union are collated. From these decisions it is clear that the mere fact that these buildings were erected upon the lands of the defendants in error by their permission did not constitute them a part of the realty, but they were the |