SALE OF SEVERED PRODUCTS ENFORCEABLE 145 



purchaser of the land with notice of the parol sale of the 

 timber. 1 



114. The Rule in the Majority of the States. In 



New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Indiana and the 

 other states which hold that all enforceable sales of growing 

 trees must be in writing, a parol sale of standing timber is 

 construed as a mere license to enter and cut timber which 

 may be revoked at any time before cutting; 2 but such 

 trees as are cut down before the revocation of the license 

 become personalty, belong to the licensee and may be car- 

 ried away by him. 3 In such states the revocation of the 

 license to cut does not give the licensee a right of action for 

 breach of contract. In other words a parol contract which 

 by the words used purports to convey title to the timber 

 will be given the same legal effect as if it were a simple oral 

 agreement on the part of the land owner to permit the other 

 party to cut timber and pay its market value. The death 

 of the owner of the land, or his conveyance of the land with- 

 out a reservation of the growing trees acts as a revocation 

 of the license to the same extent as an express revocation 

 on his part. 4 



115. The Sale of Severed Products. From the cases 

 in which there is a conflict of opinion as to whether the sale 

 is one of growing trees as realty or as constructively 

 severed personalty should be carefully distinguished those 

 cases in which the contract clearly contemplates the sale of 

 severed trees, logs, ties or lumber; and it should be noted 



1. New York etc. Iron Co. v. Green County Iron Co., 11 Heisk. (Tenn.) 434. 



2. Armstrong v. Lawson, 73 Ind. 498. 



3. Fla. Jenkins v. Lykes, 19 Fla. 148, 45 Am. Rep. 19. 



Me. Cf. Erskine v. Plummer, 7 Me. 447, 22 Am. Dec. 216. 



Mass. Cf. Drake v. Wells, 11 Allen 141; Giles v. Simouds, 15 Gray 441, 77 Am. 



Dec. 373; Nettleton v. Sikes, 8 Mete. 34. 

 Mich. White v. King, 87 Mich. 107, 49 N. W. 518; Spalding v. Archibald, 52 Mich. 



365, 17 N. W. 940, 50 Am. Rep. 253; Haskell v. Ayres, 35 Mich. 89. 

 Minn. Wilson v. Fuller, 58 Minn. 149. 

 Mo. McAllister v. Walker, 69 Mo. App. 496 (Dec. 1897). 

 N. Y. Pierrepont v. Barnard, 6 N. Y. 279 (Reversing 5 Barb. 364); Bennett v. 



Scutt, 18 Barb. 347. 



S.Dak. Price etc. Co. v. Madison, 17 S. D. 247, 95 N. W. 933. 

 Vt. Yale v. Seeley, 15 Vt. 221. 

 W.Va. Fluharty v. Mills, 49 W. Va. 446, 38 8. E. 521. 



4. Emerson v. Shores, 95 Me. 237, 49 Atl. 1051, 85 Am. St. Rep. 404; Bruley v. Gar- 



vin. 105 Wis. 625, 81 N. W. 1038. 



See Tremaine v. Williams, 144 N. C. 114, 56 8. E. 694. (possession under unre- 

 corded or invalid deed not notice to later purchaser.) 



