(IKOWING POTATOES. 53 



brought to recover the vahie of these, the plahitiff had a verdict. It was 

 objected on behalf of the defendant, that it was an interest in land, and 

 ought to have been in writing ; but BayJcij J. overruled the objection, 

 and the Court unanimously refused to grant a nonsuit. Baijlcy J. : " I 

 do not think that this contract passed an interest in the land, within 

 the meaning of the fourth section of the Statute of Frauds. In the 

 cases of Crosby v. Wadstvorih, and Waddmgton v. Bristowe, the contracts 

 were made for the growing crops of grass and hops, and therefore the 

 purchasers of the crops had an immediate interest in the land, while 

 the crops were growing to maturity before they v/ere gathered : but 

 here the land was considered as a mere warehouse for the potatoes, till 

 the defendant could remove them, which he was to immediately, and 

 therefore / do not ihlnh the case is within the slalute." And jjer Ellcn- 

 horouyh C. J. : " The lessee primce, vesturec may obtain trespass quara 

 dausumf regit, or ejectment for injuries to his possessory right, but this 

 defendant could not have maintained either ; for he had no right to 

 the possession of the close ; he had only an easement, a right to come 

 upon the land for the purpose of taking up and carrying away the 

 potatoes ; but that gave him no interest in the soil. I am not disposed 

 to extend the case of Crosby v. Wadsicorth further, so as to bring such 

 a contract as this within the Statute of Frauds, as passing an interest 

 in land." 



The defendant in War wide v. Bruce on the 12 th of October agreed by 

 parol to sell to the plaintiff (an infant) all the potatoes then growing on 

 3|- acres of his land, at £25 an acre, to be dug u^p by the 2)laintiff, who 

 paid £40 under the agreement. The latter then dug up and carried 

 away part of the potatoes, but was prevented by the defendant from 

 digging and carrying away the residue. It was held that the plaintiflp 

 was entitled to recover for this breach of the contract in part executed 

 by him, and which was for his benefit, and that it was not within the 

 fourth section of the statute. 



Again, in Sainsbury v. Matthews the plaintiff and defendant were at an 

 inn on the 29th of June, and the latter said he had 100 bags of potatoes 

 to sell at 2s. a sack. The plaintiff said he would take them, and it was 

 agreed that he was to hare them at that price at diyging-iq) time, and find 

 diggers. When the potatoes were ripe, the plaintiff sent diggers to take 

 them up, but the defendant refused permission. There was some con- 

 flicting evidence as to whether the agreement had been previously 

 rescinded ; but the plaintiff" had a verdict for £5 10s., and the Court 

 of Exchequer refused a nonsuit. Parlee B. said : " This is a contract 

 for the sale of goods and chattels at a future day, the produce of certain 

 land, and to be taken away at a certain time. It gives no right to the 



