In England the court has gone to great length in supporting the validity of an oral contract to sell standing trees. In Marshall v. Green,43 there was a parol sale of thirty-two trees "to be got away as soon as possible." After six of the trees had been cut down the seller countermanded the sale, but the buyer continued to cut and the action was brought by the seller because of this. The court held that "where the thing sold is to derive no benefit from the land, and it is to be taken away immediately, the contract is not for an interest in land." Since part of the trees had been taken away the section of the statute relating to goods was satisfied and the bargain was held to be enforceable. The same doctrine prevails in several of the United States,44 but "the courts of most of the American States that have considered the question hold expressly that a sale of growing or standing timber is a contract concerning an interest in land." 45

41 Kirkeby v. Erickson, 90 Minn. 299, 96 N. W. 705.

42 Kreisle v. Wilson (Tex. Civ. App.), 148 S. W. 1132.

43 1 C. P. D. 36.

44Boatwick v. Leach, 3 Day, 476; Cain v. McGuire, 13 B. Mon. 340; Bysasee v. Reese, 4 Metc. (Ky.) 372, 83 Am. Deo. 481; Prater v. Campbell, 110 Ky. 23, 60 8. W. 918; Cutler p. Pope, 13 Me. 377; Eralrine v. Plummet-, 7 Me. 447, 22 Am. Deo. 216; Smith p. Bryan, 5 Md. 141, 59 Am. Dec 104; Nettleton v. Sykes, 8 Met. (Mass.) 34; Claflin v. Carpenter, 4 Met (Moan.) 580, 38 Am. Deo. 381. See also Sperling v. Baldwin, 42 Vt. 306; Grooe v. West Lumber Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 165 S. W. 619.

45 Hirth v. Graham, 50 Ohio St. 57,

33 N. E. 90, 19 L. R. A. 721, 40 Am. St. Rep. 641. To the same effect are Heflin v. Bingham, 50 Ala. 566, 28 Am. Rep. 776; Griffith v. Ayer-Lord Tie Co., 109 Ark. 223, 169 S. W. 218; Coody v. Great Lumber Co., 82 Ga. 793, 10 S. E. 218; Hoetetter v. Auman, 119 Ind. 7, 20 N. E. 606; Cool v. Lumber Co., 87 Ind. 531; Terrell v. Franer, 79 Ind. 473; Owens p. Lewis, 46 Ind. 488, 15 Am. Rep. 295; Armstrong v. Lawson, 73 Ind. 498; Jackson v. Evans, 44 Mich. 510, 7 N. W. 79; Kileen v. Kennedy, 90 Minn. 414, 97 N. W. 126; Harrell v. Miller, 35 Miss. 700, 72 Am. Dec. 154; Walton v. Lowry, 74 Miss. 484, 21 So. 243; Lyte v. Shinnebarger, 17 Mo. App. 66; Howe v. Batohelder, 49 N. H. 204; Putney p. Day, 6 N. H. 430, 25 Am. Dec. 470; Westbrook p.