Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 8.djvu/391

375 SALES OF STANDING TREES. 375 in this country.^ So also as to crops of growing grain.^ The same principle has been extended to natural crops, such as grass, fruit, etc.* Mr. Browne, in his excellent work on the Statute of Frauds, thus states the result of his thorough and critical examination of all the cases on this point, He says (Sect. 237): — seems to be that, if sold specifically, and to be by the terms of the con- tract delivered separately and as chattels, such a contract of sale is not affected by the fourth section of the statute, as amountirtg to a sale of any interest in the land, and that the rule is the same when the transac- tion is of this kind, whether the product sold be trees, grass, and other spon- taneous growth^ or grains, vegetables or other crops raised by periodical cultivation.^^ * 2. As to the second class of cases referred to, namely, that of sales of articles attached to the freehold and which would pass with a deed of the land itself, unless reserved, it is now commonly thought (though even here some diversity exists) that oral sales may be valid of such things as old buildings to be presently re- moved or torn down, piles of manure, gravel hills, loads of stone or loam, stacks of peat in process of curing, ice ponds, stone walls, etc., all to be taken and carried away.^ Probably the earliest case on this subject is Boswick v. Leach.^ There the plaintiff had orally sold to the defendant parts of his gristmill, such as mill-stones, running gear, etc., but which the defendant refused to take away and pay for. The plaintiff was allowed to recover the price, — the Court saying that "where there is a sale of property which would pass by a deed of the land, but 1 Northern v. The State, i Ind. 113 ; Bull v. Griswold, 19 111. 631 ; Bricker v. Hughes, 4 Ind. 146. 2 Westbrook v. Eagar, 16 N. J. L. 81 ; Bryant v. Crosby, 40 Me. 22 ; Austin v. Sawyer, 9 Cow. 39; Marshall v. Ferguson, 23 Calif. 65; Davis v. McFarlane, 37 ib. 634. 8 Cutler V. Pope, 13 Me. 377 ; Purner v. Piercy, 40 Md. 212 ; Vulicevich v. Skinner, 77 Calif. 239 ; Smock v. Smock, 37 Mo. Ap. 56, an excellent case on this point, though even here the decisions are not uniform. V. White, 42 Ohio St. 59; Poor v. Oakman, 104 Mass. 316 ; Strong v. Doyle, no Mass. 93; Gile V. Stevens, 13 Gray, 146; Georgeson v. Geach, 3 Vict. L. R. (Cases at Law) 144. 8 3 Day, 476 (1809). 50
 * Upon a careful examination, the more approved and satisfactory rule
 * See also Sterling v. Baldwin, 42 Vt. 306; Marshall v. Green, i C. P. Div. 35.
 * See Higgins v. Kusterer, 41 Mich. 318; Shaw v. Carbrey, 13 Allen, 462; Long