CONSTRUCTIVE SEVERANCE OF TREES 135 



ranty and a provision for removal within a certain time, 

 which conveys an interest in land, l should be distinguished 

 from a grant to one, his heirs and assigns of all standing tim- 

 ber on a certain tract with the right to remove it at any 

 time, 2 or within a specified time. 3 



There is a disagreement in the decisions of American 

 courts as to whether trees that have been constructively 

 severed by a grant or a reservation in a deed become chattels 

 personal 4 or still retain the character of realty with which 

 they were invested while legally attached to the land. 5 If 

 the contract does not designate the trees or make provision 

 for the definite determination of what trees are meant the 

 title to the trees will not pass, 6 but if it provides for the sale 

 of a definite number of trees to be chosen by the purchaser 

 the title passes at once and the trees are identified as soon 

 as they are selected. 7 It has been held in different juris- 

 dictions that the words "all merchantable timber" of cer- 

 tain species on a tract of land are definite enough to pass 



(Footnote 4 con eluded from preceding page) 

 Pa. Wheeler v. Carpenter, 107 Pa. St. 271 ; Saltonstall v. Little, 90 Pa. St. 422, 



35 Am. Rep. 683; McClintock's Appeal, 71 Pa. St. 365. 

 Knotts v. Hydrick, 12 Rich. L. 314. 



Billingsby v. Butler, Hob. 173; Herlakenden's Case, 4 Co. 63b. 

 But right to timber may be lost after expiration of time named or reasonable time. 

 Ky. Morris v. Sanders (Ky. 1897) 43 S. W. Rep. 733. 

 Mass. Perkins v. Stockwell, 131 Mass. 529; Murray v. Norfolk Co., 149 Mass. 



328. 



Mich. Monroe v. Bowen, 26 Mich. 523; Richards v. To/er, 27 Mich. 451. 

 N. Y. Inderlied v. Whaley, 65 Hun. 407; Cf. Gregg v. Birdsall, 53 Barb. 402. 

 Pa. Saltonstall v. Little, 90 Pa. St. 422, 35 Am. Rep. 683. 

 S. C. Knotts v. Hydrick, 12 Rich. L. (S. C.) 314. 

 Wis. Rich v. Zeilsdorff, 22 Wis. 544, 99 Am. Dec. 81 ; Martin v. Gilson, 37 Wis. 



360. 



1. White v. Foster, 102 Mass. 375. 



2. Baker v. Kenney, 145 Iowa 638, 124 N. W. 901 ; Clap v. Draper, 4 Mass. 266, 3 Am. 



Dec. 215; See Goodyear v. Vosburgh, 57 Barb. (N. Y.) 243. 



3. Carter v. Clark and Boice Lumber Co., 149 S. W. Rep. 278 (1913). 



4. Haired v. Mason, (Ala.) 54 So. 105,; Lee v. Hotard, 122 La. 850, 48 So. 286. 



Kingsley v. Holbrook, 45 N. H. 313, 86 Am. Dec. 173; Sterling v. Baldwin, 42 Vt. 

 306; Archer Lumber Co. v. Cornett, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 569, 58 S. W. 438; Hays v. 

 McLin, 115 Ky. 39; Baker v. Jordan, 3 Ohio St. 438; Haskell v. Ayres, 35 Mich. 

 89. See Bacon Abr. Executors (H) 3; 1 Wm's Ex'rs (9th Ed.) 620; Toller, Law 

 of Ex'rs 194; Wentworth, Office of Ex'rs (14 Ed.) 148; Stukeley v. Butler, Ho- 

 bart 173, 300. 



5. Slocum v. Seymour, 36 N. J. L. 138; White v. Foster, 102 Mass. 375; See Mc- 



Clintock's Appeal, 71 Pa. St. 365; Liford's Case, 11 Co. Rep. 46b, 50a; Goodrich 

 v. Hathaway, 1 Vt. 485. 



6. Moss v. Meshew, 8 Bush. (Ky.) 190. 



7. McCoy v. Herbert, 9 Leigh (Va.) 548. 



See Clarke v. McNatt, 132 Ga. 610, 64 S. E. 795, 26 L. R. A. N. S. 585, (Title not 

 to pass till severance, not a sale of interest in land) . 



