Probably the chief question of interest with reference to this subject relates to the sale of crops and other products of land. A distinction exists between what are called "fructus industriales," such as crops of wheat, corn, and the like, which are obtained by labor and cultivation, and "fructus naturales," such as growing grass, timber, ores in the ground, and the like, produced by the power of nature alone.

68 South Baltimore Co. v. Muhlbach, 69 Md. 395, 16 Atl. 117, 1 L. R. A. 507; Frear v. Hardenbergh, 5 Johns. (N. Y.) 272, 4 Am. Dec. 356; Scoggin v. Slater, 22 Ala. 6S7; Heysham v. Dettre, 89 Pa. 506. Nor are they within section 17. Hallen v. Runder, 1 C, M. & R. 266; Lee v. Gaskell, 1 Q. B. D. 700. See "Frauds, Stattite of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 72; Cent. Dig. §§ 116-118.

69 McElroy v. Swope (C. C.) 47 Fed. 3S0; Petrie v. Torrent. 88 Mich. 43. 49 N. W. 1076; Howell v. Kelly, 149 Pa. 473, 24 Atl. 224; Gardner v. Randell, 70 Tex. 453, 7 S. W. 781; Von Trotha v. Bamberger, 15 Colo. 1, 24 Pac. 883; Flower v. Barnekoff, 20 Or. 132, 25 Pac 370, 11 L. R. A. 149; Speyer v. Desjardins, 144 111. 641. 32 N. E. 283, 36 Am. St Rep. 473; Fountain v. Menard, 53 Minn. 443, 55 N. W. 601, 39 Am. St. Rep. 617; Bates v. Babcock, 95 Cal. 479, 30 Pac. 605, 16 L. R. A. 745, 29 Am. St. Rep. 133; Case v. Seger, 4 Wash. 492, 30 Pac. 646; Coffin v. Mcintosh, 9 Utah, 315, 34 Pac. 247. But see Young v. Wheeler (C. C.) 34 Fed. 98; Raub T. Smith, 61 Mich. 543, 28 N. W. 678, 1 Am. St. Rep. 619; Brosnan v. McKee, 63 Mich. 454, 30 N. W. 107; McKinnon v. McKinnon (C. C.) 46 Fed. 713; Clarke v. McAuliffe, 81 Wis. 104, 51 N, W. 83. An agreement between A. and B. to work a stone quarry together, and divide the profits, if B. can purchase land, to be paid for by A., to whom the deed is to be made, is not for an interest in land. Treat v. Hiles, OS Wis. 344, 32 N. W. 517, 60 Am. Rep. 858. But a contract by which two persons are to buy land and cultivate it on their joint account, applying the net proceeds to the payment of the purchase money, and when the land is paid for to own it as tenants in common, has been held within the statute. Wiley v. Wiley, 115 Md. 646, 81 Atl. 180, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 789. An agreement by a person to purchase land with his own money, and divide with another, is within the statute. Towle v. Wadsworth, 147 111. SO, 30 N. E. 602, 35 N. E. 73; Bobbins v. Kimball, 55 Ark. 414, 18 S. W. 457, 29 Am. St. Rep. 45; Morton v. Nelson, 145 111. 5S6, 32 N. E. 916; Roughton v. Rawlings, 88 Ga. 819, 16 S. E. 89; Schultz v. Waidons, 60 N. J. Eq. 71, 47 Atl. 187. And see, further, as to what constitutes partnership dealings in lands. Nester v. Sullivan, 147 Mich. 493, 111 N. W. 85, 1033. 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1106; Norton v. Brink. 75 Neb. 566, 106 N. W. 668, 110 N. W. 669, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 945, 121 Am. St. Rep. 822; Scheuer v. Cochem, 126 Wis. 209, 105 N. W. 573, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 427, and note. Sec "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 76; Cent. Dig. §§ 185-139.

70Long v. Hartwell, 34 N. J. Law, 116; Johnson v. Dodge, 17 111. 433; Kempner v. Cans, 87 Ark. 221, 111 S. W. 1123, 112 S. W. 1087. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 74,116; Cent. Dig. §§ 122-131, 251-260; "Principal and Agent," Cent. Dig. § 580.

Fructus industriales are chattels, and not an interest in land;71 and this is true whether the crops are growing, or, having matured, have ceased to draw any nutriment from the soil.72

Fructus naturales, on the contrary, are such an interest, and a contract for their sale, which contemplates the passing of the property before the severance, is within the statute;73 but it is otherwise if the title is not to pass until after they are severed.7*