TREES AS REALTY 21 



tate. 1 Trees cannot be considered emblements but are 

 a part of the inheritance. 2 A sale of land passes the title 

 to the trees standing upon the land, 3 but they may be 

 reserved by deed. 4 The term "tree" without explana- 

 tion implies a standing tree and therefore it has been said 

 that it was not actionable slander to say "A stole my bee 

 tree," since a standing tree, as realty, was not subject to 

 larceny. 5 However, it has been held that timber within 

 the New York State forest lands is subject to larceny, 6 

 and in several states the wrongful taking of standing tim- 

 ber has been declared larceny by statute. 7 



(Foot note 5 concluded from preceding page) 

 Ohio. Hirth v. Graham, 5O Ohio St. 57, 33 N. E. 90, 40 Am. St Rep. 641, 19 



L. R. A. 721. 

 Pa. Miller v. Zufall, 113 Pa. St. 317, 6 Atl. 350; Bowers v. Bowers, 95 Pa. St. 



477 ; Pattison's Appeal.61 Pa. St. 294, 100 Am. Dec. 637. 

 Tenn. Knox v. Haralson. 2 Tenn. Ch. 232. 

 Vt. Buck v. Pickwell, 27 Vt. 157. 



Wis. Williams v. Jones, 131 Wis. 361, 111 N. W. 505; Lillie v. Dunbar, 62 Wis. 

 198, 22 N. W. 467; Daniels v. Bailey, 43 Wis. 566; Strasson v. Mont- 

 gomery, 32 Wis. 52. 



U. S. Marthinson v. King, 150 Fed. 48, 82 C. C. A. 360. 

 Eng. Scorell v. Boxall, 1 Y. & J. 396. 



Growing fruit trees are considered as part of the land. 



Griffing Bros. Co. v. Winfleld, 53 Fla. 589, 43 So. 687; Adams v. Smith, 

 ' 1 Breese (111.) 221, (1828). 



1. Williams v. Hyde, 98 Mich. 152, 57 N. W. 98. 



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



3. Cockrill v. Downey, 4 Kans, 426. 



4. McClintock's Appeal, 71 Pa. St. 365; Heflin v. Bingham, 56 Ala. 506, 28 Am. 



Rep. 776; Goodwin v. Hubbard, 47 Me. 595; Howard v. Lincoln, 13 Me. 122; 

 See also, Putnam v. Tuttle, 10 Gray (Mass.) 48. 



5. Idol v. Jones, 13 N. C. 162, 164, (2 Dev. L.). 



6. People v. Gaylord, 139 N. Y. App. Div. 814, 124 N. Y. Suppl. 517; Pashley v. 



Bennett, 108 N. Y. App. Div. 102, 95 N. Y. Suppl. 384. 

 The unlawful taking of turpentine which has flowed into boxes in trees may be 



larceny. 



State v. King 98 N. C. 648 (1887); State v. Moore 33 N. C. (11 Ired.) 70. 

 The same should be true of other products of trees. See distinction between 



objects physically and constructively annexed in Jackson v. State 11 Ohio St. 



104; but compare U. S. v. Wagner 1 Cranch C. C. 314, Fed. Gas. No. 16,630; 



U. S. v. Smith 1 Cranch C. C. 475, Fed. Gas. No. 16,325. 



7. Fla. Compiled Laws, 1914, Sec. 3295, (Act June 3, 1907). 



Kan. Gen. St. 1909 Sec. 2577. 



Md. Cf. Laws 1813, Ch. 162; Laws 1826, Ch. 260, (Both given in Laws of 



Md. 1692-1839, Dorsey, Vol. 1. pp. 622 and 918). Pub. St. 1904 Sec. 



265 (willows). 



Minn. Rev. Laws, 1905, Sec. 5084. 



Mo. Rev. Stat. 1889, Sec. 3603-3606. Rev. Stat. 1909 Sec. 4547. 

 Neb. Rev. Stat., 1913, Sec. 8683. 



N. C. Cf. Code of 1883, Sec 1070, (Laws of 1866, Ch. 60). 

 Wash. Code of 1910, Rem. & Bal. Sec. 23 )1. 



