No. 4.] RURAL LAW. 167 



bark peeled, but before any of it was removed, the owner of 

 the land changed his mind, and forbade the tanner to enter 

 and carry away the bark. His contention was that this con- 

 tract related to an interest in the lands, and was void by the 

 statute of frauds; but the court said " No," because the 

 bark when peeled had liecome the property of the defend- 

 ant by the terms of the contract, and the plaintiff had no 

 right to prevent his taking it away, because it was left on 

 his land by his own consent. In another case, in Worcester 

 Count}^ one Ross, the owner of a farm on which he had a 

 field of cabbages, went onto the land in the month of 

 August with one Welch, and a bargain was made between 

 them that Welch should purchase the cabbages there grow- 

 ing when ready to be severed from the soil. In November, 

 after the cabbages had headed, they met again, counted them, 

 and agreed upon the number that the defendant should have, 

 and that he should take them away whenever he wished. He 

 did, however, take only a part of those agreed upon, refus- 

 ing to take the balance, on the ground that the cabliages 

 were then growing, that they were attached to the soil, and 

 were therefore a part of the real estate. But the court held 

 that the taking of a part was a constructive delivery of the 

 whole, and compelled the defendant to pay for the entire 

 field of cabbas^es. 



This subject is involved in a good many intricacies and 

 exceptions, so that it is difficult, in this hurried way, to give 

 a very accurate idea a])out it. It is enough for my present 

 purpose to add a caution that, when any member of the 

 State Board of Agriculture is buying a farm while the crops 

 are growing upon it, he had better take good care to secure, 

 by explicit terms in his deed, all that he supposes he is 

 purchasing. 



Fixtures. 



To the general rule already stated, that whatever is an- 

 nexed to the land becomes a part of it, there is one striking 

 exception, which gives rise to what we call the law of fixt- 

 ures. The term is a misnomer, for it denotes the reverse 

 of its name. Fixtures are really those things annexed to 

 the land in a kind of permanent way, which are still regarded 

 as personal property, and are removable hy the vendor of 



