This section is from the book "The Law Of Real Property and Other Interests In Land", by Herbert Thorn Dike Tiffany. Also available from Amazon: A Treatise on the Modern Law of Real Property and Other Interests in Land .
Those products of the earth which are the result of annual labor and manuring by the person in possession of the land, known sometimes as "fructus industriales," and sometimes as "emblements," are regarded, for many purposes, not as constituting a part of the land, but as chattels. Of such character are grain, garden vegetables, and other annual crops. On the other hand, trees, perennial bushes, and grasses, termed "fructus naturales," are regarded as a part of the land for all purposes.56 Fruits upon trees and bushes have usually been included in this latter class, even though to some extent the result of annual labor and manuring.57 But occasionally such fruits, when grown by the application of regular labor, have been regarded as fructus industriales.58 Hops, though growing from
296; Consumers Gas Trust Co. v. Littler, 162 Ind. 320, 70 N. E. 363; Indiana Oil Gas & Development Co. v. McCrory, 42 Okla. 136, 140 Pac. 610.
56. Co. Litt. 55b; 2 Blackst. Comm. 123, 1 Williams, Executors (9th Ed.) 620; Evans v. Hardy, 76 Ind. 527; Powers v. Clarkson, 17 Kan. 218; Sparrow v. Pond, 49 Minn. 412, 16 L. R. A. 103/32 Am. St. Rep. 571, 52 N. W. 36; Kirkeby v. Erickson. 90 Minn. 299, 101 Am. St. Rep. 411, 96 N. W. 105; In re Chamberlain, 140 N. Y. 390, 37 Am. St. Rep. 568, 35 N. E. 602; Pattison's Appeal, 61 Pa. St. 294; Reiff v. Reiff, 64 Pa. St. 134; Kimball v. Sattley, 55 Vt. 285, 45 Am. Rep. 614.
Artificial grasses, however, produced by special cultivation, may perhaps be regarded as fructus industriales. See 1 Williams, tains, not only the ownership thereof, but also a right in the soil sufficient for their nourishment, and the privilege of entering on the land to remove them.68 By some decisions an oral exception of such growths is valid and effective,69 hut there are derisions to the contrary,70 and evidence of such an exception would seem to be ordinarily inadmissible under the general rule that declarations of intention cannot be considered to aid in the interpretation of an instrument except when there is an equivocation in the Language thereof.70a Occasionally the validity of such an exception has been asserted on the theory that it forms part of the consideration for the conveyance, and that the consideration can always be shown orally.70b But an
Executors (9th Ed.) 625. Graves v. Weld. 5 B. & Ad. 105; Wimp v.
Early, 104 Mo. App. 85. But see Evans v. Iglehart, 6 Gill & J.
(Md.) 171, 189.
57. Rodwell v. Phillips, 9 Mees & W. 501; State v. Gemmill, 1 Houst. (Del ) 9; Sparrow v. Pond, 49 Minn. 412, 16 L. R. A. 103, 32 Am. St. Rep. 571, 52 N. W. 36; Rogers v. Elliott, 59 N. H. 201, 47 Am. Rep. 192; Kain v. Fisher, 6 N. Y. 597; Kimball v. Sattley, 55 Vt. 285, 45 Am. Rep. 614; Ewell, Fixtures (2nd Ed.) 333.
58. Purner v. Piercy, 40 Md. 212, 17 Am. Rep. 591; Vulicevich v. Skinner, 77 Cal. 239, 19'fcac. 424; Smock v. Smock, 37 Mo. App. 56.