THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS 141 



general rule that a reservation of standing trees when the 

 title to the land is transferred to another will be given legal 

 effect in the courts only on condition that such reservation 

 is in writing. 1 Some courts have given effect to a parol 

 reservation of standing trees. - 



109 The English Doctrine as to the Statute of Frauds. 



In one of the leading English cases 3 there was a parol agree- 

 ment for the sale of trees then standing, but the trees, 

 which were sold at a certain rate per foot, were to be cut 

 down by the vendor and two of the trees had already been 

 severed at the time of the sale. This was held to lie a sale 

 of goods and chattels within the seventeenth section of the 

 Statute of Frauds and not a sale of an interest in land under 

 the fourth section of the statute. Some later cases in dis- 

 cussing this leading case laid great stress upon the fact that 

 the severance there was to be made by the seller, l but it is 

 now fairly well settled that the question as to whether or not 

 a contract was intended to pass, or actually did pass, title 

 will be determined upon other grounds and that the title 

 may pass even though severance is to be made by the ven- 

 dee. ' 



Although widely variant opinions have been expressed in 

 different American jurisdictions as to the ground upon 



1. Ala. Ilcflin v. JJingham, 5fi Ala,. 5(1(1, L'S Am. Kep. 77(1. 

 Kan. Coekrill v. Downey, 4 Kan. 42(1 (1SI5S). 



Me. Howard v. Lincoln, l.'i Mr. 122. 



Mass. Clap v. Draper. I Muss. 2(1(1: White \. Foster. 102 Mass. :;75: Spurr v. An- 

 drew, (1 Allen. 420. 



Mich. Dodder v. Snyder. 110 Mich. (l!l, 67 X. W. 1 101 : Wait v. Ualdwiti. (10 Mich. 

 (122. 



Mo. Mcllvume v. Harris, 20 Mo. 457, (14 Am. Dec. I'.Ml. 



X. II. Alcutl v. Lakin. : N. II. 507, (1(1 Am. Dec. 7:i'.. 



N". Y. Wintermute v. Li^ht, 4(1 Uarl). 27s. 



X. <'. Klynt v. Conrad, (11 X. C. 11)0, '.>:{ Am. Dee. 5ss. 



I'a. McClintock's Appeal. 71 l>a. St.. :!(J5. 



N't. Sterling \ . Baldwin. 42 \'t.:i()(i. 



Kii. Stanley v. White. 1 1 Kast,. :i:iX: Harrington's Case, x Coke i:iflb. 



2. llelfreck l.nmher etc. Co. v. Honaker, 7(1 S. W. :U2. 25 Ky. I.. Kep. 717: K|UM- v. 



Sparks. 10 Ind. App. 444: Heavilon v. llea-vilon. 2!> hid. 50!l; Baker v. Jordan. 

 :> Ohio St. CiS; Backenstoss v. Stahler's Adm'rs. :{:{ I'a. St. 2.~>1. 75 Am. Dee. 

 592; See Sherman v. Willett, 12 N. Y. 14(1. 



Hut see Kimhrel v. Thomas, 13!) Ca. 14(1, 7(1 S. K. 1024: Cullen v. Armstrong, 2()'.t 

 J-'ed. 704 (Transfer of ri^ht to cut. timber.) 



3. Smith v. Snrman, '.I Barn. ,t C. 5(11, 7 L. .1. K. B. ( >. S. 2'.Ki. I M . ,S; K. 455. 17 



E. C. L. 25:{. 



4. Karl of Falmouth v. Thomas, 1 C. & M. 105. 



5. Marshall v. Ureen. 1 C. l>. Div. 40. 15 L. .1. C. I'. 15:!, :{:{ 1..T. Kep. N. S. 404, 24 



Wkly. Kep. 175, 1 Win. Saund. :<!)5: Scovcll v. Boxall. 1 Y.& .lerv. :{l)(i; Teal v. 

 Auty, 2 B. & B. 101 ; See Kills v. Cirubb, :5 I'. C. Q. B. ((). S.) Gil. 



