CORN CROPS. 50 



think, therefore, this is an averment of a binding contract for the sale 

 of the crop, with a riglit to enter on the land in order to take the cro}). 

 That contract being void by the statute, the action cannot be maintained, 

 and the rule ought to be absolute for a nonsuit." 



In Jones v. Flint the plaintiff and defendant agreed verbally that the 

 defendant should give £45 for the cro}) of growing corn (wheat and 

 barley) on the plaintiff's land, and tlie ]jrofit of the sfuhMe afterwards ; 

 and that plaintiff was to have liberty for his cattle to run with the 

 defendant's. Defendant was also to have some potatoes growing on the 

 land, and whatever lag grass was in the fields, and also to harvest the 

 corn and dig up the potatoes, the plaintiff paying the tithe. It did not 

 distinctly appear whether the sale was liy the acre or not ; and the crojis, 

 &c., Avere taken by the defendant in conformity with the agreement. 

 The payment of £5 and the tender of £30 lis. lOcl. were proved as 

 pleaded ; and Bosanquet J,, overruling the objection for the defendant 

 that the contract proved was for an interest in land, directed a verdict 

 for the plaintiff on the first issue, never indebted as to all but 

 £35 11 5. 10^/,, and for the defendant on the second and third. The 

 Court of Queen's Bench refused a nonsuit, and held that it did not 

 appear to be the intention of the parties to contract for any interest in 

 land, and the case was therefore not within the 4th sec. of the Statute 

 of Frauds, but a sale of goods and chattels as to all but the lay grass ; 

 and as to that, a contract for the agistment of defendant's cattle. 



Lord Denman C. J. said, " The crops of corn, potatoes, and the after 

 eatage of stubble and lay grass, were all, except the lay grass, frudus 

 industriaJes ; as such they are seizable by the sheriff under ^ fieri facias, 

 and go to the executor and not to the heir. If they had been ripe at 

 the date of the contract, it may be considered now as quite settled that 

 the contract would have been held to be a contract merely for the sale of 

 goods and chattels. And although they had still to deri^'c nutriment 

 from the land, yet a contract for the sale of them has been determined 

 from this their original character, not to be on that account a contract 

 for the sale of an interest in land. Evans v. Roleris proceeds on this 

 principle. Holrogd J. says, ' This is to be considered a contract for the 

 sale of goods and chattels to be delivered at a future period, although 

 the vendee might have an incidental right, by virtue of this contract, to 

 some benefit from the land while the potatoes were arriving at maturity, 

 yet I think he had not an interest in the land within the meaning of 

 this statute.' And Littlcdate J. says, ' I think that a sale of any growing 

 produce of the earth (reared by labour and expense) in actual existence 

 at the time of the contract, whether it be in a state of maturity or not, 

 is not to be considered a sale of au interest in or concerning lands within 



