On the sale of land, or on its conveyance, either absolutely or by way of mortgage, vegetable growths thereon ordinarily pass with the land to the vendee or grantee, this being true of annual crops, as well as of trees or shrubbery.65 Trees planted in a nursery garden likewise prima facie pass by a conveyance of the land.66 And even trees and crops which have been cut and are lying upon the land have been regarded as passing under a conveyance in terms of the land.67

Although the vegetable growths ordinarily pass on a conveyance in terms of the land, they do so merely because such is the presumed intention of the grantor, and they do not pass if an intention appears from the conveyance that they shall not pass. In other words, an exception or "reservation" of such growths is valid, the effect thereof being that the grantor renote; Spencer's Case, Winch. 51; Cooper v. Woolfit, 2 Hurl. & N. 122; Denne-t v. Hopkinson, 63 Me. 530; Pratte v. Coffman's Ex'r 27 Mo. 424; In re Anderson's Estate, - Neb. - 118 N. W. 1108; Budd v. Hiler, 27 N. J. L. 43; Stall v. Wilbur, 77 N. Y. 158; In re Chamberlain, 140 N. Y. 390, 37 Am. St. Rep. 568, 35 N. E. 602; Smith v. Barham, 17 N. C. 420, 25 Am. Dec. 72. Contra, by statute, see Humphrey v. Merritt, 51 Ind. 197; Thom-as v. Lines, 83 N. C. 191.

65. Floyd v. Ricks, 14 Ark. 286, 58 Am. Dec. 374; Treat v. Dorman, 100 Cal. 623, 35 Pac. 86; Smith v. Price, 39 111. 28, 89 Am. Dec. 281; Heavilon v. Heavilon, 29 Ind. 509; Smith v. Leighton, 38 Kan. 544, 5 Am. St. Rep. 778, 17 Pac. 52; Brown v. Thurston, 56 Me. 126, 96 Am. Dec. 438; Tripp v. Has-ceig, 20 Mich. 254; Reed v. Swan. 133 Mo. 100, 34 S. W. 483; Kittredge v. Woods, 3 N. H. 503; Terhune v. Elberson, 3 N. J. L. 533, Batterman v. Albright, 122 N. Y. 484, 11 L. R. A. 800, 19 Am. St. 251, 75 Am. Dec. 592; Back-enstoss v. Stahler's Adm'rs, 33 Pa. St 251, 75 Am Dec. 592; Woody v. Wagner, 89 Wash. 429, 154 Pac. 819

That on partition the allotment of a certain portion of the land to a cotenant includes the crop thereon, see Calhoun v. Curtis, 4 Metc. (Mass.) 413, 38 Am. Dec. 380.

66. Maples v. Millon, 31 Conn. 598; Smith v. Price, 39 111. 28, 89 Am. Dec. 284; Adams' v. Beadle, 47 Iowa, 439, 29 Am. Rep. 487.

67. 2 Kent, Comm. 346; Brackett v. Goddard, 54 Me. 309. See Kittredge v. Woods, 3 N. H. 503. 72. Contra, Jenkins v. Lykes, 19 Fla. 148; McRight v. Farned (Ala.) 70 So. 297.

68. Heflin v. Bingham, 56 Ala. 566, 28 Am. Rep. 776; Howard v. Lincoln, 13 .Me. 122; Clap v. Draper, 4 Mass. 266; Wait v. Baldwin.. 60 Mich. 622, 1 Am. St. Rep. 551, 27 N. W. 697; Alcutt v. Lakin, 33 N. H. 507, 66 Am. Dec 739; Herron v. Herron, 47 Ohio St. 544, 9 L. R. A. 667, 21 Am. St. Rep. 854 25 N. E. 420; McClintock's Appeal, 71 Pa. St. 365, Sterling v. Baldwin. 42 Vt. 306.

69. Heavilon v. Heavilon, 2'? Ind. 509; Kluse v. Sparks, 10 Ind. App. 444, 37 N. E. 1047; Willard v. Higdon, 123 Md. 477, 91 Atl. 577; Cooper v. Kennedy, 86 Neb. 119, 124 N. W. 1131; Beck v. Mc-Lane, 129 App. Div. 745, 114 N. Y Supp. 44; Walton v. Jordan, 65 N. C. 170; Baker v. Jordan, 3 Ohio St 438; Grabow v. McCracken, 23 Okla. 612, 23 L. R. A. (N. S ) 1218, 102 Pac. 84; Backens'oss v. Stah-Ier's Adni'rs, 33 Pa. St. 251, 75 Am. Dec. 592; Bjornson v. Rostad, 30 S. Dak. 40. Ann. Cas. 1915A 116t, 137 N. W. 5b7;Kerr v. Hill,

27 W. Va. 57G; See Sherman v. Willett, 42 N. Y. 146.

70. Gibbons v. Dillingham, 10 Ark. 9, 50 Am. Dec. 233; Fiske v. Soule, 87 Cal. 313, 25 Pac. 430; Smith v. Price, 39 111. 28; Cock-rill v. Downey, 4 Kan. 426; Brown v. Thurston, 56 Me. 126, 96 Am. Dec. 438; Vanderkarr v. Thompson, 19 Mich. 82; Kammrath v. Kidd, 89 Minn. 380, 99 Am. St. Rep. 603, 95 N. W. 213; Cantrell v. Crane, 161 Mo. App. 308, 143 S. W. 837; Austin v. Sawyer, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 39; Alexander v. Herndon, 8.4 S. C. 181, 65 S. E. 1048.

70a. 4 Wigmore, Evidence Sec.Sec. 1471, 1472; Phipson, Evidence (4th Ed.) 563.

70b. Lloyd v. Sandusky, 203 111. 621, 68 N. E. 154; Heavilon v. Heavilon, 29 Ind. 509; Holt v. Holt, 57 Mo. App. 272; Grabow v. McCracken, 23 Okla. 612, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1218, 18 Ann. Cas. 503, 102 Pac. 84.

Real Property.

[Sec. 259 exception is not, properly speaking, a part of the consideration, and cannot well be.70c Sometimes the validity of the oral exception is sought to be sustained upon the ground that the parties interested may, by oral agreement, make vegetable growths personalty, although they were previously part of the realty.71 Even conceding that this might be done, however, the fact that the vegetation is personalty does not necessarily exclude it from the operation of the conveyance. "Whether it passes is a question of intention, that is of the interpretation of the language used in the instrument, and not of the legal character of the vegetation.

If the ownership of any part of the vegetation has previously been vested in a person other than the owner of the land, it will not pass under a conveyance of the land by the latter, at least to one who knows of such severance of ownership,72 and, by some decisions, crops which are ready for cutting are not considered to pass by a conveyance of the land.73

70c. That is, the withdrawal from the operation of the conveyance of a part of what would otherwise be included therein cannot be regarded as a consideration, since the grantor does not thereby part with any thing of value. The effect of the exception is merely to give him less than what he otherwise would have obtained. It might as well be said that if the owner of two adjoining lots conveys one of them, the nan inclusion of the other lot constitutes a consideration for the conveyance.

71. See editorial 12 Columbia Law Rev. 456.

72. 1 Williams, Ex'rs (9th Ed.) 620; 1 Woerner, Administration, Sec. 281; Bunch v. Pittman, 123 Ark.

127, 184 S. W. 850; Johnson v. Barber, 10 111. 431; Wait v. Baldwin, 60 Mich. 622, 1 Am. St. Rep. 551, 27 N. W. 697; Austin v. Sawyer, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 39; Myers v. White, 1 Rawle (Pa.) 355; Her-shey v. Metzgar, 90 Pa. St. 218; Willis v. Moore, 59 Tex. 628; see Granville Lumber Co. v. Atkinson, 234 Fed. 424.

73. Hecht v. Dettman, 56 Iowa, 679; Powell v. Rich, 41 111. 466; First Nat. Bank of Clay Centre v. Beegle, 52 Kan. 709, 39 Am. St. Rep. 365, 35 Pac. 814. See Willis v. Moore, 59 Tex. 628. Contra, Tripp v. Hasceig, 20 Mich. 254, 4 Am. Rep. 388; In re Anderson's Estate, 83 Neb. 8, 131 Am. St. Rep. 613, 17 Ann. Cas. 941, 118 N. W. 1108.

Sec.Sec. 260, 261] Rights of Enjoyment.

Sec. 260. Liability for debts

Fructus naturales are not subject to levy on execution as personal property,74 but fructus industriales are so subject, and the sheriff or purchaser may enter on the land for purposes of their cultivation, preservation, or removal, though having no interest in the land.75 The crops so levied on are thereafter to be considered as in the custody of the law.76