154 CONTRACTS REGARDING GROWING TIMBER 



The manufacture of the severed trees into timbers, ties, 

 lumber, or other products, prior to the expiration of the 

 time of removal would probably be held sufficient in all 

 jurisdictions to vest the title irrevocably in the vendee. x 

 If the one who cuts trees would profit through the conversion 

 from realty to personalty, an equity court may hold that 

 such wrongful cutting does not change the trees to person- 

 alty in order to prevent the one' cutting from deriving an ad- 

 vantage from his wrongful act. 2 



The rules usually applied to trees which have been cut by a 

 purchaser within the time limited for removal in the con- 

 tract is in accordance with the general principles of the law 

 regarding severed trees. Trees that have been severed 

 either rightfully or wrongfully will ordinarily be considered 

 personalty and will not pass with the land upon which they 

 lie. 3 The same is true of products manufactured from the 

 trees such as wood, hewed timber, posts and rails, not built 

 into a fence, 4 lumber, 5 slabs and other refuse piled for fire- 

 wood. 6 



119. The Reservation of Title until Payment is 

 Made. When standing timber is sold the title may be re- 

 served in the vendor until full payment is made for the tim- 

 ber whether the contract requires that such payment be 



1 . Ga. Johnson v. Truitt, 122 Ga. 327, 50 S. E. 135. 



Miss. Butler v. McPherson, 95 Miss. 635, 49 So. 257. 



Mo. Hubbard v. Burton, 75 Mo. 65. 



S. C. Jones v. Lbr. Corp., 92 S. C. 418, 75 S. E. 698 (cutting for tram, as al- 

 lowed by contract, not a commencement.) 



Wis. Golden v. Clock, 57 Wis. 118, 15 N. W. 12, 46 Am. Rep. 32. 

 . 2. Porch v. Fries, 18 S. J. Eq. 204. 



3. See References Note 1, p. 22. 



Also: Brock v. Smith, 14 Ark. 431; Jenkins v. Lykes, 19 Fla. 148, 158 (1882;; 

 Fitzpatrick v. Hoffman, 104 Mich. 228, (1895); Ind. School Dist. of West 

 Point v. Werner, 43 Iowa 643 (1876); Hickey v. Rutledge, 98 N. W. 974, 

 (Mich. 1904). 



4. Schmidt v. Vogt, 8 Ore. 344, 347 (1880); Barrett v. Cohen, 119 Ind. 56 (1888); 



Frank v. Magee, 50 La. Ann. 1066 (1898): Carpenter v. Lewis, 6 Ala. 682 

 (1844); Peck v. Brown, 5 Nev. 81 (1869); Reyman v. Mosher, 71 Ind. 596 

 (1880); Thweat v. Stamps, 67 Ala. 96 (1880); Crouch v. Smith, 1 Md. Ch. 

 401 (1849); Cook v. Whitney, 16 111. 480 (1855); McCarthy v. McCarthy, 

 20 Can. L. J. Occ. N. 211 (Co. Ct. Ont. 1900). 



5. Howell v. Barnard, 32 111. App. 120 (1889); Hinkle v. Hinkle, 69 Ind. 134 (1879): 



See Banfil v. Twyman, 71 111. App. 253 (1896). 

 6. Jenkins v. McCurdy, 48 Wis. 628 (1879). 



