CROPS AND TILLAGES. CI 



and sold ; or, per Ahhot C.J., at least on a declaration stating that the 

 defendant was indebted for the value of crops sown by the plaintiff on 

 land in his possession, and which the defendant (who had made a part 

 payment on account for such crops, some dead stock, and a farm 

 machine) was allowed to take, and for which he promised to pay. 



The case of the Earl of Falmouth v. Thomas, where the pleadings 

 expressly connected the bargain as to ike crops and Ullages with an 

 interest in land, established that a contract by plaintiff with an in- 

 coming tenant to take and pay for growing crops, and the work, 

 labour, and materials expended on making lands ready for tillage, and 

 for which the plaintiff had not as yet derived any benefit, in considera- 

 tion of plaintiff's letting him a farm for fourteen years, is a contract or 

 sale of an interest in or concerning land, and therefore void if not 

 reduced into writing. At the time when each of those contracts upon 

 which the plaintiff sued were stated to be made, the cro]3S were grow- 

 ing upon the land, the defendant was to have the land as well as the 

 crops, and the work, labour, and materials were so incorporated with 

 the land as to be inseparable from it. The defendant would not have 

 the benefit of the work, labour, and materials unless he had the land, 

 and hence the Court of Exchequer considered that the right to the 

 crops, and the benefit of the work, labour, and materials were both of 

 them an interest in land. 



An agreement hy a tenant ivith his landlady, that if she would accept 

 another for her tenant in his place (he being restrained from assigning 

 the lease without her consent) he would pay her £40 out of £100 

 which he was to receive for the good-will if her consent was obtained, 

 is a contract for an interest in land (Griffith v. Young). As, however, 

 the defendant had received the £100 from the new tenant, who was 

 cognizant of this agreement, and then refused to pay the £40 on the 

 ground that " there was no written agreement, and words were but 

 wind," he was held liable to his landlady in an action for money had 

 and received to her use. Lord Ellenhorongh C.J. said : " I have no 

 doubt it would have been within the statute if the contract were 

 executory ; but when the contract is executed, and money has actually 

 been paid by the succeeding tenant to the defendant in trust, to be paid 

 over by him to the plaintiff, shall he now gainsay that he received it 

 for her use ? If one agree to receive money for the use of another, 

 upon a consideration executed, however frivolous or void the considera- 

 tion might have been in respect of the person paying the money, if 

 indeed it were not absolutely immoral or illegal, the person so receiv- 

 ing it camiot be permitted to gainsay his having received it for the use 

 of that other." Le Blanc J. said : " The consideration is past : Pugh 



