22 TREES AND TIMBER AS- PROPERTY 



27. Severed Trees are Personal Property. Upon 



severance from the land, either actual, l as by physical 

 detachment, or constructive, 2 as by valid sale and con- 

 veyance, trees become personalty. They are then subject 

 to all the rules of law applicable to personal property and 

 do not pass with a subsequent conveyance of the land. 3 

 However, it has been held that under a statute making 

 timber an immovable even when separated in ownership 

 from the land upon which it stands, 4 trees will retain 



1. Ala. Carpenter v. Lewis, 6 Ala. 682. 

 Ark. Brock v. Smith, 14 Ark. 431. 

 Cal. Kimball v. Lohmas, 31 Cal. 154. 



Fla. Jenkins v. Lykes, 19 Fla. 148, 4.5 Am. Rep. 19. 



m. . Cf. Brown v. Throckmortou, 11 111. 529, Wincher v. Shr -wsbury, 3 



111. 283, 35 Am. Dec. 108. 

 Iowa, Robertson v. Phillips, 3 Greene 221. 

 La. Woodruff v. Roberts, 4 La. Ann. 127; But see, Frank v. Magee, 49 La. 



Ann. 1250. 

 Me. Goodwin v. Hubbard. 47 Me. 535; Whidden v. Seelye. 40 Me. 247, 63 



Am. Dec. 661; Moody v. Whitney, 34 Me. 563; Richardson v. Vork, 



14 Me. 216. 



Md. Cranch v. Smith, 1 Md. Ch, 401. 



Mass. Giles v. Simonds, 15 Gray 441, 77 Am. Dec. 373; Douglas v. Shumway, 

 13 Gray 498; Clark v. Holden, 7 Gray 8, 66 Am. Dec. 450; See 

 Fletcher v. Livingston, 153 Mass. 388. 



Mich. Macomber v. Detroit etc. R. Co., 108 Mich. 491, 66 X.W. 376, 62 Am. St. 

 Rep. 713, 32 L. R. A. 102; White v. King, 87 Mich. 107, 49 X. W. 518. 



Minn. Berthold v. Holman, 12 Minn. 335. 93 Am. Dec. 233. 



Mo. Kelly v. Vandiver, 75 Mo. App. 435; Keeton v. Audsley, 19 Mo. 362, 

 61 Am. Dec. 560. 



Xev. Peck v. Brown, 5 Nov. 81. 



X. H. Kingsley v. Holbrook, 45 X. H. 313, 86 Am. Dec. 173; Plumer v. Pres- 

 cott, 43 N. H. 277. 



X. J. Porch v. Fries, 18 N. J. Eq. 204. 



X. Y. Bennett v. Scutt, 18 Barb. 347; Pierrepont v. Barnard, 6 X. Y. 279 (Re- 

 versing 5 Barb. 364) ; W T arren v. Leland, 2 Barb. 613. 



X. C. Wall v. Williams, 91 X. C. 477. 

 . Ore. Schmidt v. Vogt, 8 Ore. 344. 



Pa. Brewer v. Fleming, 51 Pa. St. 102; Altemose v. Hufsmith, 45 Pa. St. 121: 

 But see, Rogers v. Gilinger, 30 Pa. St. 188, 72 Am. Dec. 694; and 

 Leidy v. Proctor, 97 Pa. St. 492. 



Tenn. Xew York etc. Iron Co. v. Green Co. Iron Co., 11 Heisk. 434. 



Vt. Yale v. Seely, 15 Vt. 221. 



Wis. Hicks v. Smith, 77 Wis. 146, 46 X. W. 133; Golden v. Clock, 57 Wis. 118, 



15 N. W. 12, 46 Am. Rep. 32: Paine v. W T hite, 21 Wis. 423; State v. 

 School etc. Lands, 19 Wjs. 237. 



See, 40 Cent. Dig., tit. "Property," Sec. 8. 



2. Kingsley v. Holbrook, 45 X. H. 313. 86 Am. Dec. 173; Warren v. Leland. 2 Barb. 



(N. Y.) 613: Asher Lumber Co. v. Cornett. 58 S. W. 438, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 569, 

 56 L. R. A. 672; For other cases see 32 Cyc. 674, note 66. 



3. Woodruff v. Roberts, 4 La. Ann. 127: Berthold v. Holman, 12 Minn. 335, 93 Am. 



Dec. 233; Peck v. Brown, 5 Xev. 1: Schmidt v. Voght, 8 Ore. 344: But see, 

 Byasse v. Reese, 4 Mete. (Ky.) 372, 83 Am. Dec. 481; Lockeshan v. Miller, 

 16 Ky. L. Rep. 55; Musser v. McRae, 44 Mum. 343. 46 X. W. 673. 



4. Smith v. Huie-Hodge Lumber Co., 123 La. 959, 49 So. 655. Wolff Rev. L. 1908 



Vol. 3, p. 723. 



