134 CONTRACTS REGARDING GROWING TIMBER 



104. Trees May be Constructively Severed. As has 



been before stated (*), standing or growing trees have uni- 

 versally been held to constitute a part of the land upon 

 which they have grown. The presumption that trees 

 which are physically connected with the soil through their 

 roots are a part of the land and pass to the heir or with a 

 conveyance of the title to the land l is not conclusive; and 

 growing trees may in law be constructively severed from the 

 land so that the legal transfer of the title to the land will not 

 operate as a transfer of the title to the trees standing upon 

 the land. 2 This separation of the ownership of the growing 

 trees from the ownership of the soil which supports and 

 nourishes them may be effected through a grant of the trees 

 separate from the land 3 or through a sale of the land with a 

 reservation of the trees. 4 A deed with covenants of war- 



(Footnote 7 concluded from preceding page) 



Ind. Hege v. New on, 96 Ind. 426. 



Miss. Plantation Co. v. Heading Co., 104 Miss. 131, 61 So. 166 (express war- 

 ranty of title.) 



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



N. C. Zimmerman v. Lynch, 130 N. C. 61, 40 S. E. 841. 



Tex. Cf. Richburg v. Patten, 46 Tex. Civ. App. 83, 101 S. W. 836 (no title in 

 seller.) 



Wis. Van Doren v. Fenton, 125 Wis. 147, 103 N. W. 228. 



U. S. Land Co. v. Wheeler, 189 Fed. 321 (express warranty). 

 *See citations, Note 5. page 20. 



1. Kittredge v. Woods, 3 N. H. 503; Nursery Trees: Maples v. Milton, 31 Conn. 598; 



Smith v. Price, 39 111. 28, 89 Am. Dec. 284; Adams v. Beadle, 47 Iowa 439, 29 

 Am. Rep. 487; Liford's Case, 11 Coke 48; BUlingsby v. Hercy, Moore, K. B. 831. 



2. Warren v. Leland, 2 Barb. (N. Y.) 613; Nelson v. Nelson, 6 Gray (Mass.) 385 



(1856); New York etc. Iron Co. v. Green County Iron Co., 11 Heisk. (Tenn.) 

 434; Haskell v. Ayres, 35 Mich. 89; Kingsley v. Holbrook, 45 N. H. 313, 86 

 Am. Dec. 173; White v. Foster, 102 Mass. 375; Donworth v. Sawyer, 94 Me. 242. 

 Kendall v. Lumber Co. (Ark.) 64 S. W. 220. (Recording constructive notice to 

 all). 



3. White v. Foster, 102 Mass. 375; Clap v. Drape-, 4 Ma s. 266, 3 Am. Dec. 215; 



Hays v. McLin, 115 Ky. 39, 72 S. W. 339, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 1827; Irons v. Webb, 



41 N. J. L. 203, 32 Am. Rep. 193; Hoit v. Stratum Mills, 54 N. H. 109, 20 Am. 



Rep. 119; Peterson v. Gibbs, 147 Cal. 1, 81 Pac. 121, 109 Am. St. Rep. 107; 



Haskell v. Ayres, 35 Mich. 89; McCoy v. Herbert, 9 Leigh (Va.) 548. 

 A sale of standing timber to be cut and removed at a specified rate per cord or 



thousand feet vests in the purchaser the exclusive title to the timber. 

 Dexter v. Lothrop 136 Pa. St. 565, 20 Atl. 545; Hays v. McLin 115 Ky. 39. cf. 



Wheeler v. Carpenter 107 Pa. St. 271. 



4. Ala. Lumber Co. v. Austin, 162 Ala. 110, 49 So. 875; Heflin v. Bingham. 56 Ala. 



566, 28 Am. Rep. 776. 

 Me. Stft>ut v. Harper, 72 Me. 270; Goodwin v. Hubbard, 47 Me. 595; Howard v. 



Lincoln, 13 Me. 122. 

 Mass. Hill v. Cutting, 107 Mass. 596; Reed v. Merrifleld, 10 Mete. 155; Putnam v. 



Tuttle, 10 Gray 48. 

 Mich. Clifton v. Jackson Iron Co., 74 Mich. 183 (1889); Haskell v. Ayres, 35 



Mich. 89. 

 N C. Robinson v. Gee, 4 Ired L. (26 N. C.) 186; Bond v. Cashie etc. R. Co., 127 



N. C. 125. 



(Footnote 4 continued on next page) 



