20 TREES AND TIMBER AS PROPERTY 



prehensively by statutes regulating liens. x The phrase 

 "wood and manufactures thereof," as occurring in tariff 

 schedules, has also received judicial interpretation. 2 



Crude turpentine which has exuded from trees cut or 

 boxed for turpentining purposes is personalty which be- 

 longs to the one who lawfully prepared the trees, 3 and 

 conversion will lie for the unlawful taking of such personal- 

 ity. 4 



26. Growing Trees are Real Property. Standing 

 or growing trees, as fructus naturales, have always been 

 held to form a part of the realty 5 and under a State statute 

 regarding the recording and filing of real and chattel mort- 

 gages, an interest in timber must be considered to be real es- 



1. Ryan v. Guilfoil, 13 Wash. 373, 43 Pac. 351; Hadlock v. Sbumway, 11 Wash. 



690, 40 Pac. 346; Baxter v. Kennedy, 35 X. Brunsw. 179. 



2. In general. Hartranft v. Wiegmann, 121 U. S. 609, 7 S. Ct. 1240, 30 L. Ed. 1012. 



Lumber. Dudley v. U. S., 74 Fed. 548, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 801. 



Holly whips. Davies v. U. S., 107 Fed. 266. 



Picture frames. Hensal v. U. S., 99 Fed. 722; U. S. v. Gunther, 71 Fed. 499, 18- 



C. C. A. 219. 



Dry wood powder. Goldman v. U. S., 87 Fed. 193. (Not wood-pulp.) 

 Whipstocks, etc. In re Foppes v. U. S., 72 Fed. 45; In re Foppes, 56 Fed. 817. 

 Bamboo blinds, etc. U. S. v. China, etc. Trading Co., 71 Fed. 864, 18 C. C. A. 335 



(Revs'g. 66 Fed. 733.) 



Furniture. Richard v. Hedden, 42 Fed. 672. 

 Gun blocks. U. S. v. Windmuller, 42 Fed. 292. 

 Shingles. Stockwell v. U. S., 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13, 466, 3 Cliff. 284. Cf. Lueders 



v. U. S., 131 Fed. 655; Sill v. Lawrence, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 12, 850, 1 Blatch, 605. 



3. Lewis v. McNatt, 65 N. C. 63 (1871) 1 Gray Cas. 638; Branch v. Morrison, 5a 



N. C. 16, 69 Am. Dec. 770, 5 Jones L, 16, 6 Id. 16. 



4. Melrose Mfg. Co. v. Kennedy, 59 Fla, 312, 51 So. 595; Branch v. Morrison, 5O- 



N. C. 16; Quitman Naval Stores Co. v. Conway, 58 So. 840. 



5. Ala. Gibbs v. Wright, (Ala. App.) 57 So. 258; Milliken v. Faulk, 111 Ala. 658, 



660, 20 So. 594; Heflin v. Bingham, 56 Ala. 566, 28 Am. Rep. 776. 

 Ark. Lbr. Co. v. Development Co. 176 S. W. 129. Starnes v. Boyd 142 S. W. 



1143. 



Fla. Grifflng Bros. Co. v. Winfleld, 53 Fla. 589, 43 So. 687. 

 Ga. Morgan v. Perkins, 94 Ga. 353, 21 S. E. 574; Moore v. Vickers, 126 Ga. 



42. 54 S. E. 814; Balkcom v. Empire Lumber Co., 91 Ga. 651, 655, 17 



S. E. 102O, 44 Am. St. Rep. 58; Goody v. Gress Lumber Co., 82 Ga. 793, 



10 S. E. 218. 



111. Osborn v. Rabe, 67 111. 108; Adams v. Smith, 1 111. 283. 



Ind. Armstrong v. Lawson, 73 Ind. 498. 



Me. Emerson v. Shores, 95 Me. 237, 49 Atl. 1051, 85 Am. St. Rep. 404. 

 Md. But see Whittington v. Hall, 116 Md. 467, 82 Atl. 163. 

 Miss. Harrell v. Miller, 35 Miss, 700, 72 Am. Dec. 154. 

 N.H. Howe v. Batchelder, 49 N. H. 204; Kingsley v. Holbrook, 45 N. H. 313, 



86 Am. Dec. 173; Olmstead v. Niles, 7 N. H. 522; Putney v. Day, 6- 



N. H. 430, 25 Am. Dec. 470. 



N. J. Slocum v. Seymour, 36 N. J. L. 138, 13 Am. Rep. 432. 

 N. Y. Vorebeck v. Roe, 50 Barb. 302, 306; Goodyear v. Vosburgh, 39 How. Pr> 



377; Green v. Armstrong, 1 Den. 550; Mclntyre v. Barnard, 1 Sandf- 



Ch. 52. 



N. C. Mizell v. Burnett, 49 N. C. 249, 69 Am. Dec. 744. 

 (Foot note 5 continued on next page) 



