60 AGREEMENT TO AGIST. 



the mcauing of the -1th section.' Bcujley J. lays down the same principle, 

 and qnalifies not the judgment but the dictum of Main^field C. J. in 

 Emmerson v. Hcelis, which is certainly at variance with the decision of 

 the Court of King's Bench in Evans v. Roberts. It was a dictum, how- 

 ever, unnecessary to the decision. The present case differs from Evans 

 V. Eoherfs in this, that there the potatoes were to be dug up by the 

 seller; but Holroijd S. expressly says that even if they were dug up by 

 the buyer, ' I think he would not have had an interest in the land.' " 



On the whole the Court considered that the possession of the field 

 remained in the owner after the harvesting, and that it was more reason- 

 able to consider him as (([listing the vendee's cattle, than as having his 

 own cattle agisted by him whose interest at the best was of so very 

 limited a nature; but that if this had been a case in which the parties 

 intended a sale and purchase of the grass to be mowed or fed by the 

 buyer, the defendant's objection must prevail. Without, however, im- 

 peaching the authority of Croshy v. Wcuhworth, but deciding on the 

 additional facts in the case, they thought the introduction of the lay 

 grass into the contract (especially as it might be doubted on all the 

 evidence, which did not state that any clover or other grass had been 

 sown with the corn, whether anything that could be called a crop of 

 grass was in the ground) did not alter its nature, and that the defendant 

 took no interest in land. Excluding the lay grass, the parties must be 

 taken to have been dealing about goods and chattels, and an easement 

 of the right to enter the land for the purpose of harvesting and carrying 

 tliem away was all that was intended to be granted to the purchaser ; 

 and as to the lay grass, it was a mere contract for the agistment of 

 defendant's cattle. 



The general ijrinciple was thus stated by R(jlfe B., in Wasldmirne v. 

 Binroirs: "When," said his Lordship, "a sale of growing crops does, 

 and when it does not confer an interest in land, is often a question of 

 much nicety ; but certainly when the owner of the soil sells what is 

 growing on the land, whether natural produce, as timber, grass, or 

 apples, or fnictus indiistrialcs, as corn, pulse, or the like, on the terms 

 that he is to cut or sever them from the land, and then deliver them 

 to the purchaser, the purchaser acquires no interest in the soil, which 

 in such case is only in the nature of a warehouse for what is to come 

 to liim merely as a personal chattel." 



In Mayfield v. Wadsley, the Court of King's Bench, Littledale J., 

 did)., was of opinion that where there was a sale of (jrowing crojjs 

 distinct from any assicjnment or letting of the land, the crops do not 

 constitute part of the inheritance or any interest in land, but are mere 

 chattels, and may be recovered on a declaration for goods bargained 



