FALLEN TREES AS REALTY 137 



mediately removed by a trespasser could not form the sub- 

 ject matter of a prosecution for larceny. 1 



106. Special Interests in Trees. A grant of the use 

 of the timber on a certain tract of land does not convey the 

 timber itself or the land, 2 nor does a conveyance of the 

 timber on a certain tract with a right to remove it within a 

 limited time afford the grantee an exclusive possession of the 

 land. 3 An estate in inheritance in the timber upon land 

 separate from the land itself may be created by deed, 4 and 

 the owner of the estate in timber may maintain an action in 

 trespass for the breaking of the close. 5 Trees may be 

 leased separately from the land upon which they stand. 6 

 In states that consider a sale of standing timber one in- 

 volving an interest in land, statutes requiring that mort- 

 gages and other conveyances of personal property shall be 

 recorded, do not apply to contracts for th.e sale of growing 

 timber. 7 



107. Interests in Land Incident to Timber Owner- 

 ship. The valid sale of standing trees.apart from the land, 

 or an effective reservation of them in a sale of the land, car- 

 ries a right in the soil sufficient for the nourishment of the 

 trees and the legal right of the purchaser, or the one holding 

 the reservation, to enter upon the land and remove the 



1. Reg. v. Harris, 11 Mod. 113; Altemose v. Hufsmith, 45 Pa. 121; Comfort v. Fulton, 



39 Barb. (N. Y.) 56 (1861); Johnson v. State, 100 Ala. 55 (1893); Bonham v. 

 State, 65 Ala. 456, (1880) ; State v. Thompson, 93 N. C. 537 (1885) ; State v. Fay, 

 82 N. C. 679 (1880). But See 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; Harberger v. State, 4 Tex. App. 26, 30 Am. Rep. 15 T; Ex parte Wilke, 34 

 Tex. 155 (1871); Farris v. State, 69 S. W. 140, (Tex. Grim. App. 1902). 



2. Clark v. Way, 11 Rich. (S. C.) 621. 



3. Reed v. Merrifleld, 10 Mete. (Mass.) 155. 



4. Clap v. Draper, 4 Mass. 266; See Goodyear v. Vosburgh, 57 Barb. (N. Y.) 243. 



5. Clap v. Draper, 4 Mass. 266; See Goodrich v. Hathaway, 1 Vt. 485; McCoy v. 



Herbert, 9 Leigh (Va.) 548. 

 Camp v. Horton, 131 Ga. 793. 63 S. E. 351. 



6. Perkins v. Peterson, 110 Ga. 24; Carter v. Williamson, 106 Ga. 280: See Lbr. Co. v. 



Beall, 5 Ga. App. 202, 62 S. E. 1056; Wefel v. Williams, 58 Fla. 538, 50 So. 679 

 (Deed with reservation of Turpentine Right). 



7. Bent v. Hoxie, 90 Wis. 625, 64 N. W. 426 ; Lillie v. Dunbar, 62 Wis. 198, 22 N. W. 467. 



But See, Bunn v. Valley Lumber Co., 51 Wis. 376, 8 N. W. 232; Cadle v. Mc- 

 Lean, 48 Wis. 630, 4 N. W. 755; See also, Mee v. Benedict, 98 Mich. 260. 57 

 N. W. 175, 39 Am. St. Rep. 543, 22 L. R. A. 641; Fish v. Capwell (R. I.) 29 Atl. 

 840, 25 L. R. A. 159; McRae v. Still well, 111 Ga. 65; Contra, Warren v. Leland, 

 2 Barb. (N. Y.) 613; See also, Bowerman v. Taylor, 127 Ky. 812, 106 S. W. 

 846, 32 Ky. L. Rep. 671 ; Burwell v. Chapman (N. C. ) 74 S. E. 635; Childers v. 

 Coleman, 122 Term. 109, 118 S. W. 1018; Lumber Co. v. Lowe, 110 Va. 950 

 (actual notice equivalent to recording.); Paper Co. v. Baptist, 41 Can. S. Ct. 

 105 (Quebec case); Barnes v .Golding, 11 Ont. W. R. 261. 



