A contract to sell, or speaking more exactly, to transfer, growing trees, crops, or other vegetable products, is to be distinguished from an actual transfer or conveyance, just as a contract to convey land is to be distinguished from a conveyance thereof. A mere contract, it would seem, cannot operate to effect a severance. For this purpose the transaction must involve as well a conveyance, a transfer of title.

A contract to sell growing trees, or other vegetable growths of a quasi permanent character, such as grass, or fruit growing on trees (fructus naturales) is, by the weight of authority, prima facie a contract for the sale of an interest in land, and consequently must be in writing under the fourth section of the English Statute of Frauds, or its equivalent.92 The contract may, however, according to a number of decisions, be susceptible of construction as a contract to sell, not growing trees or the like, an interest in land, but one to sell the trees after they have been cut, or the grass or fruit after it has been gathered, that is,

McRae v. Stilwell, 111 Ga. 85, 55 L. R. A. 513, 38 S. E. 604; Lecker v. Hunt, 111 N. Y. App. Div. 821, 98 N. Y. Supp. 174; Patterson v. Graham, 164 2a. 234, 30 Atl. 247; Houston Oil Co. v. Boykin, - Tex. Civ. App. -. 153 S. W. 1176; Western Lime & Cement Co. v. Copper River Land Co., 138 Wis. 404, 120 N. W. 277. Compare North Georgia Co. v. Bebee, 128 Ga. 563, 57 S. E. 873; Hicks v. Phillips, 146 Ky. 305, 142 S. W. 394; Chapman v. Dearman, - Tex -, 181 S. W. 808.

92. Richbourg v. Rose, 53 Fla. 173, 125 Am. St. Rep. 1061, 12 Ann. Cas. 274, 44 So. 69; Corbin v. Durden, 126 Ga. 429, 55 S. E

30; Hostetter v. Auman, 119 Ind. 7, 20 N. E. 506; Garner v. Ma-honey, 115 Iowa, 356, 88 N. W. 828: Kileen v. Kennedy, 90 Minn. 414, 97 N. W. 126; Harrell v. Miller, 35 Miss. 700, 72 Am. Dec. 154; Walton v. Lowrey, 74 Miss. 484, 21 So. 243; Starks v. Garver Lumber Co., 182 Mo. App. 241, 167 S. W. 1198; Putney v. Day, 6 N. H. 430. 25 Am. Dec. 470; Kingsley v. Hol-brook, 45 N. H. 313, 86 Am. Dec. 313; Howe v. Batchelder, 49 N. H. 204; Drake v. Howell, 133 N. C. 162, 45 S. E. 539; Buck v. Pick-well, 27 Vt. 158; Stuart v. Pennis, 9i Va. 688, 22 S. E. 509; Fluharty v. Mills, 49 W. Va. 446, 38 S. 3. 521.

Sec. 262]

Rights of Enjoyment.

Even though a contract for the sale of growing trees is invalid because not in writing, it will ordinarily be effective as a license to the intended vendee to cut and remove the trees, with the result that such trees as are cut and removed by him before the revocation of the license become his absolute property.96 Like93. Smith v. Surman, 9 Barn. & C. 561; White v. Foster, 102 Mass. 375; Slocuni v. Seymour. 36 N. J. L. 138, 13 Am. Rep. 432; Killmore v. Howlett, 48 N. Y. 569; Ives v. Atlantic & N. C. R. Co., 142 N. C. 131, 115 Am. St. Rep. 732, 9 Ann. Cas. 188, 55 S. E. 74; Childers v. Wm. H. Coleman Co , 122 Tenn. 109, 118 S. W. 1018; Scales v. Wiley, 68 Vt. 39, 33 Atl. 771.

94. Banton v. Shorey, 77 Me. 48; Claflin v. Carpenter, 4 Mete. (Mass.) 583; Drake v. Wells, 11 Allen (Mass.) 141; White v. Foster, 102 Mass. 375; Fletcher v. Livingston, 153 Mass. 388, 26 N. E. 1001; Fish v. Capwell, 18 R. I. 667, 25 L. R. A. 159, 49 Am. St. Rep. 807, 29 Atl. 840. This would rather appear to be the rule in. Maryland. Purner v. Piercy, 40 Md. 212; Leonard v. Medford, 85 Md. 666, 37 L. R. A. 449, 37 Atl 365.

95. Marshall v. Green, 1 C. P. Div. 35; Upson v. Holmes, 51 Conn. 500; Byassee v. Reese, 4 Mete. (Ky.) 372, 83 Am. DC 481;

Tilford v. Dotson. 106 Ky. 755, 51 S. W. 583; Robbins v. Farwell, 193 Pa. 37, 44 Atl. 260; Philip A. Ryan Lumber Co. v. Lowe.-Tex. -, 177 S. W. 226: West Lumber Co. v. C. R. Cummings Export Co., -, Tex. Civ. Arp.-, 196 S. W. 546; Hurricane Lumber Co. Lowe, 110 Va. 380, 66 S. E. 66: Charles Somers Co. v. Pix, 75 Wash. 233, 134 Pac. 932.

96. Jenkins v. Lykes. 19 Fla. 148, 45 Am. Rep. 19; Cool v. Peters Pox & Lumber Co., 87 Ind. 531; Spacy v. Evans, 152 Ind. 431, 52 N. E. 605; White v. King, 87 Mich. 107, 49 N. W. 518; St. John v. Sinclair, 108 Minn. 274, 118 N. W. 164; Walton v. Lowrey, 74 Miss. 484, 21 So. 243; Starks v. Garver Lumber Mfg. Co. 182 Mo. App. 241, 167 S. W. 1198; Hodgson v. Kennett 73 N. H. 225 60 Atl. 686; Bennett v. Scutt, 18 Barb. (N. Y.) 347; Fluharty v. Mills, 49 W. Va. 446, 38 S. E. 521; Lillie v. Dunbar, 62 Wis. 198, 22 N. W. 467; Welever v. Advance Shingle Co., 34 Wash. 331, 75 Pac. 863.

[Sec. 263 wise if the contract is valid, although not in writing, because regarded as a contract to sell the wood as it is cut by the vendee,97 the latter has a license to cut and remove the trees, with the result that the trees which are cut by him before the revocation of the license become his property, and after such cutting he has an irrevocable license to remove those cut.98

Fructus industriates, being regarded as chattels for most purposes, are so treated in connection with the Statute of Frauds, and they do not constitute an interest in land, within the fourth section.99