30 Black, Const. Law, 124; Weise v. Smith, 3 Or. 445; Wilson v. Forbes, 2 Dev. (N. C.) 30; The Daniel Bell, 10 Wall. 557. Cf. Veazie v. Dwinel, 50 Me. 479; City of Chicago v. Mcginn, 51 111. 266; People v. Tibbetts, 19 N. Y. 523; Glover v. Powell, 10 N. J. Eq. 211. 31 State v. Pottmeyer, 33 Ind. 402; Washington Ice Co. v. Shortall, 101 111. 46; Brookville & Metamora Hydraulic Co. v. Butler, 91 Ind. 134; Stevens v. Kelley,78 Me 445, 6 Atl. 868; Village of Brooklyn v. Smith, 104 III 429. And see Lorman v. Benson, 8 Mich. 18; People's Ice Co. v. The Excelsior, 44 Mich. 6 N. W. 636; Howe v. Andrews, 62 Conn. 398, 26 Atl. 394. 32 Wood v. Fowler, 26 Kan. 682; Inhabitants of West Roxbury v. Stoddard, 7 Allen, 158; Brastow v. Ice Co., 77 Me. 100; Woodman v. Pitman, 79 Me. 456,10

Atl. 321; Barrett v. Ice Co., 84 Me. 155, 24 Atl. 802. But cf. Mcfadden v. Ice Co., 86 Me. 319, 29 Atl. 10G8.

Minerals, Fossils, etc.

Unmined minerals, metals, and fossils are realty, and belong to the owner of the land as a part thereof,33 as does also an aerolite which falls on the land.34 In England the right to gold and silver mines is in the crown.35 But the rule does not apply here. The United States and the states own mines as they own other property, -that is, the same as private individuals,-and not by reason of sovereignty.36

Exceptions-Things Severed from the Land.

Any of the things which have been enumerated as part of the land, and therefore realty, may become personalty by being severed from the land.37 This is true of portions of the soil itself.38

3. Everything growing on land is real property, except: Exceptions-(a) Things constructively severed. (b) Annual crops.

Things Growing on Land-annual Crops-trees.

Everything growing upon land, except annual crops 39 is realty 40 until it is made personalty by being severed.41 The severance, however, need not be an actual physical act, but may be constructive42 For instance, trees and the like can be made personal property by conveying the land and reserving the trees, or by the owner selling the trees as they stand on the land.43

33 Appeal of Stoughton, 88 Pa. St. 198; Dunham v. Kirkpatrick, 101 Pa. St. 36; Hartwell v. Camman, 10 N. J. Eq. 128.

34Goddard v. Winchell, 86 Iowa, 71, 52 N. W; 1124.

35 If the gold or silver was found together with baser metals, they all belonged to the king if the value of the precious metals was greater than the value of the others. But if the baser metals were more valuable than the gold or silver, then the owner of the soil took both. Case of Mines, Plowd. 810; 3 Kent, Comm. 378, note; 1 Bl. Comm. 294.

36 Boogs v. Mining Co., 14 Cal. 279; Moore v. Smaw, 17 Cal. 199; 1 Cooley, Bl. Comm. 294, note 4.

37 Lykens Valley Coal Co. v. Dock, 62 Pa. St. 232; Higgins v. Kusterer, 41 Mich. 318, 2 N. W. 13; In re Clever's Estate, 23 Pittsb. Leg. J. (N. S.) 358; Kier v. Peterson, 41 Pa. St. 357.

38 See Lacustrine Fertilizer Co. v. Lake Guano & Fertilizer Co., 82 N. Y. 476; Riley v. Water Power Co., 11 Cush. 11

39 Which are personalty. Robinson v. Ezzell, 72 N. C. 231; Crine v. Tifts, 65 Ga. 644; Bloom v. Welsh, 27 N. J. Law, 177; Pickens v. Webster, 31 La.

40 See note 40 on following page. 41 See note 41 on following page.

Same - .Emblements.

The term "emblements" denotes such annual products of the land as have resulted from a tenant's own care and labor, and which he is entitled to take away after his tenancy has ended.44 Annual crops are all "vegetable products of the earth, as corn, etc.,45 which are produced annually 46 by labor, industry, and manann. 870; Brlttaln v. Mckay, 1 Ired. (N. C.) 265; Polley v. Johnson, 52 Kan. 478, 35 Pac. 8; Mabry v. Harp, 53 Kan. 308, 36 Pac. 743. See, also, Winter-mute v. Light, 46 Barb. 278; Miller v. Baker, 1 Metc. (Mass.) 27; Butterman v. Albright, 122 N. Y. 484, 25 N. E. 856. But they pass with a conveyance of the land. Backenstoss v. Stahler, 33 Pa. St 251; Coman v. Thompson, 47 Mich. 22, 10 N. W. 62; Powell v. Rich, 41 111. 466; Smith v. Price, 39 111. 28; Ter-hune v. Elberson, 3 N. J. Law, 533; Tripp v. Hasceig, 20 Mich. 254. As to matured crops see 2 Jones, Real Prop. § 1621. And go to a devisee. Dennett v. Hopklnson, 63 Me. 350; Bradner v. Faulkner, 34 N. Y. 347; Mr. Spencer's Case, Winch. 51; Cooper v. Woolfitt, 2 Hurl. & N. 122. As to what are annual crops, see Latham v. Atwood, Cro. Car. 515.

40 Maples v. Millon, 31 Conn. 598; Batterman v. Albright, 122 N. Y. 484, 25 N. E. 856; Adams v. Beadle, 47 Iowa, 439; Wescott v. Delano, 20 Wis. 514; Coekrill v. Downey, 4 Kan. 426; Brackett v. Goddard, 54 Me. 309.

41 State v. Moore, 11 Ired. (N. C.) 70. Cf. State v. Stephenson, 2 Bailey (S. C.) 334. But see In re Mulholland's Estate, 154 Pa. St 491, 26 Atl. 612.

42As when owned by one who does not own the land. Jencks v. Smith, 1 N. Y. 90; Dayton v. Vandoozer, 39 Mich. 749; Warren v. Leland, 2 Barb. 613.

43 Yale v. Seely, 15 Vt 221; Kingsley v. Holbrook, 45 N. H. 313. But cf. Brackett v. Goddard, 54 Me. 309. As to the requirements of the statute of frauds in relation to the sale of growing trees, see Clark, Cont p. 106; Green v. Armstrong, 1 Denlo, 550; Whitmarsh v. Walker, 1 Metc. (Mass.) 313; Harris v. Frink, 49 N. Y. 24.

44 Black, Law Dict. "Emblements."

45 This includes grain. Peacock v. Purvis, 2 Brod. & B. 362; Cooper v. Woolfitt, 2 Hurl. & N. 122; Forsythe v. Price, 8 Watts, 282. And the straw. Craig v. Dale, 1 Watts & S. 509. Hemp. Co. Litt 55a. Hops. Latham v. Atwood, Cro. Car. 515. Clover and artificial grasses. Graves v. Weld, 5

46 As to teasels, see Graves v. Weld, 5 Barn. & Adol. 105; Kingsbury v. Collins, 4 Ring. 202. urance, and are called 'fructus industriales,'" as distinguished from those spontaneous or natural products which are called "fructus naturales." Whenever such crops are planted 47 by one having an interest of uncertain duration in the land, and that interest terminates without his fault before the crops are harvested,48 there is a right to enter to cultivate, harvest, and remove them.49 This right is given on the principle that the crops are not planted with any intention to benefit the one next entitled to the land, but with the expectation of reaping them. No one is entitled to emblements who has terminated his estate by his own act.50 The