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 .
The decisions above referred to in regard to the rights of the grantee of land and of the tenant to manure made on the land cannot be regarded as decisive of the question whether manure is to be considered real or personal property, and the decisions directly bearing on this point are few. In a decision of quite early date it was said that manure in a heap is a chattel, and goes to the
How. Pr. (N. Y.) 189; Lewis v. Jones, 17 Pa. St. 267, 55 Am. Dec. 550.
In case the manure thus made from produce raised off the premises is mingled with that from the crops raised on the premises, the tenant will, according to occasional decisions (Lewis v Jones 17 Pa. 267, 55 Am. Dec. 550, Bonnell V. Allen, 53 Ind. 130) lose the right to remove any portion, while by others he may remove such portion of the common mass as may represent that made from produce raised off the premises. Nason v. Tobey, 182 Mass. 314, 94 Am. St. Rap. 659; 65 N. E 389; Pickering v. Moore, 67 N. H. 533, 31 L. R. A. 698, 68 Am. St. Rep 695, 22 Atl. 828.
8. Lassell v. Reed, 6 Me. 222; Goodrich v. Jones, 2 Hill (N. Y.) 142; Sawyer v. Twiss, 2C N. H. 345; Strong v. Doyle, 110 Mass. 92;Wetherbee v. Ellison, 19 Vt.
9. Webb v. Plummer, 2 Barn. & Ald. 746; Roberts v. Barker, 1 Cromp & M. 808; Fletchei v. Herring, 112 Mass. 382; Hill v. De Rochemont, 48 N. H. 87; Middle-brook v. Corwin, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 169. In England the rights of the landlord and tenant are apparently always settled by custom or agreement, and hence arises the lack of English decisions on the subject.
10. Needham v. Allison, 24 N. H. 355; Lewis v. Jones, 17 Pa. 267, 55 Am. Dec. 550. And see Corey v. Bishop, 48 N. H. 146; Roberts v. Jones, 71 S. C. 404.
2 L. R. A. N.' S. 640, 25 S. E. 240; Gallagher v. Shipley, 2-i Md. 418. 87 Am. Dec. 611.
11. Bonnell v. Allen, 53 Ind. 130; Waln v. O'Conner, 5 Clark (Pa.) 164, 9 Leg Int. 67. See Mid-dlebrook v. Corwin, 15 Wend! (N. Y.) 169.-- ......
279] favor of occupants of neighboring land.17a Restrictions in this regard also exist in favor of persons who will or may in the future become entitled to possession of the land. Generally speaking, the person in possession is required, in the course of his utilization of the land, and in making or causing physical changes thereon and therein, to do so in such a way as not unreasonably to injure one who has a right or possibility of future possession. A failure to comply with this requirement is what ordinarily constitutes waste.17b
Rights of Enjoyment.
Even if otherwise regarded as part of the land, manure becomes personalty if sold toy the landowner separately from the land,16 or if excepted upon a conveyance of the land.17