A 

 146 CONTRACTS REGARDING GROWING TIMBER 



that such contracts may contemplate a severance by the 

 vendee as well as by the vendor. The English case of 

 Smith v. Surnam (9 Barn. & C. 561) pointed the way to this 

 line of cases and it seems strange that so much confusion has 

 arisen in subsequent decisions. There have been numerous 

 decisions holding oral sales to be valid where they clearly 

 contemplated the cutting of the trees by the vendor and the 

 delivery of logs or other products of the trees to the vendee; 1 

 and in contracts which provide that the cutting be done 

 by the vendee it may be clearly the intention of the parties 

 that the sale is one of the severed products as chattels. 2 



116. The Period Allowed for Removal. Most con- 

 tracts which contemplate a sale of trees separate from the 

 land upon which they stand stipulate a period of time within 

 which the vendee may enter and remove the trees. The 

 limited time usually begins to run from the day the convey- 

 ance is made but the contract may provide otherwise. Thus 

 it may be provided in the contract that the period allowed 

 for removal shall begin to run at the time that cutting is be- 

 gun, 3 but in such cases the cutting must be begun within a 



1. Mich. Yockey v. Norn, 101 Mich. 193. 



N. Y. Killmore v. Hewlett, 48 N. Y. 569 (1872). 



S. C. Jones v. McMichael, 12 Rich. 176. 



Term. Dorris v. King et al. (Ch. App. Tenn. 1889), 54 S. W. 683. 



2. Nash v. Rockford Veneer Co., 109 Mich. 269 (1896). 



3. Ark. Attridge v. Smith, 105 Ark. 626, 152 S. W. 300. See Burbridge v. Lbr. Co. 



178 S. W. 304 (Expeditiously as possible.) Newton v. Stock 173 S. W. 



819 (Contract required diligence and penalty for failure in time 



named. Held continuous logging required.) 

 Fla. Brown v. Beckwith, 60 Fla. 310, 53 So. 542. 

 Ga. Lbr. Co. v. Harris, 8 Ga. App. 70, 68 S. E. 749 (effect of cutting by a third 



party.) Perkins v. Peterson, 110 Ga. 24, 35 S. E. 319; Baxter v. Mattox, 



106 Ga. 344, 32 S. E. 94. 

 Ky. Hounshell v. Muller, 153 Ky. 530. 155 S. W. 114 ; Begley v. Timber Co.. 



152 Ky. 455, 153 S. W. 734. 

 La. See Yerger v. Simmons, 136 La. 280, 67 So. 3; Thompson v. Sawmill Co., 



121 La. 318, 46 So. 341. 



Mo. Hanna v. Buford (Mo. App.) 177 S. W. 662 

 Mont. Hollensteiner v. Lbr. Co. 37 Mont. 278, 96 Pac. 420. 

 N. C. Rountree, v. Cohn-Bock Co., 158 N. C., 153, 73, S. E. 796; Powers v. Lbr. 



Co., 154 N. C. 405, 70 S. E. 629; See Davis v. Frazier, 150 N. C. 447, 



64 S. E. 200. 

 S. C. Timber Co., v. Prettyman, 97 S. C. 247, 81 S. E. 484; McClary Lbr. 



Corp. 90 S. C. 153; 72 S. E. 145; Lbr. Co. Litchfleld 90 S. C. 363, 73 



S. E. 182; Matthewson v. Lbr. Co., 95 S. E. 352, 78 S. E. 970; Flagler 



v. Lbr. Corp., 71 S. E. 849. 

 Va. See Brown v. Lbr. Co. 75 S. E. 84. 

 Wash. Heybrook v. Beard, 75 Wash. 646, 135 Pac. 626; Dew v. r earson, 73 Wash. 



602, 132 Pac. 412. 

 U. S. Cf. U. S. v. Lbr. Co., 172 Fed. 714. 



