STATE RULES AS TO STATUTE OF FRAUDS 143 



111. The Maryland Rule. The Maryland courts 

 have taken the ground that where standing timber is speci- 

 fically sold, whether it is to be severed by the vendor or the 

 vendee, under a license to enter for that purpose, the inten- 

 tion of the parties will be construed to be that of a sale of 

 goods and not of an interest in land. l 



The theory adopted in Massachusetts, Maine, Connecti- 

 cut and Maryland as to the interpretation to be placed upon 

 parol contracts for the sale of growing timber substantially 

 effects an evasion of the prohibition of the statute of frauds 

 against the sale of an interest in land by parol. 



112. The Pennsylvania Rule,. In Pennsylvania, if 

 it is the intention of the parties that the timber is to remain 

 upon the land for some time, drawing sustenance therefrom, 

 and be taken at the pleasure of the vendee, the sale is held 

 to be one of an interest in land 2 while if the intention is 

 that it shall be removed at once and the trees are selected, 

 marked or clearly designated, the sale effects a constructive 

 severence and is one of chattels. 3 This doctrine is similar 

 to that expressed in the English case of Marshall v. Green 4 

 and has been approved in other states. 5 



113. The Kentucky Rule. In Kentucky, if a con- 

 trary intention does not appear, the courts will construe a 

 parol contract as indicating an intention that the standing 

 trees shall become personalty at the instant the sale is 

 effected, and therefore not within the fourth section of the 

 statute and will give legal effect to that intention. The 

 Kentucky courts follow closely the English doctrine that as 

 soon as the trees are identified either by actual marking or 

 by such definite description as to afford certainty as to the 

 trees to be taken under the contract, the contract is com- 



1. Leonard v. Medford, 85 Md. 666, 37 Atl. 365, 37 L. R. A. 449; Purner v. Piercy, 



40 Md. 212; Smith v. Bryan, 5 Md. 141, 59 Am. Dec. 104. 



2. Pattison's Appeal, 61 Pa. St. 294, 100 Am. Dec. 637; Bowers v. Bowers, 95 Pa. 



St. 477; Yeakle v. Jacob, 33 Pa. St. 376; Miller v. Zufall, 113 Pa. St. 317, 6 Atl. 

 350. 



3. McClintock's Appeal, 71 Pa. St. 365; Huff v. McCauley, 53 Pa. St. 206, 91 Am. 



Dec. 203; Robbins v. Farwell, 193 Pa. St. 37, 44 Atl. 260; Strause v. Berger. 220 

 Pa. St. 369, 69 Atl. 818. 



4. 1 C. P. Div. 35, supra. 



5. Wright v. Schneider, 14 Ind. 527; Leonard v. Medford, 85 Md. 666; Yale v. Seely, 



15 Vt. 221; Ellison v. Brigham, 38 Vt. 64; Sterling v. Baldwin, 42 Vt. 306; Up- 

 son v. Holmes. 51 Conn. 500. 



