PAYMENT OP LEGACIES OUT OF SALE OF GROWING CROPS. 67 



to leave his fixtures (which he had purchased on entering, and might 

 have removed during his tenancy) for the landlord at a valuation, is not 

 the sale of an interest in land within the 4th sec. of the Statute of 

 Frauds, nor at semble the 17th, which relates to the "sale of goods" 

 above the value of £10, and the tenant recovered £40 105. in indebi- 

 tatus assumpsit for the price and value of fixtures, &c., bargained and 

 sold, and for fixtures sold and delivered. That case was, in fact, a 

 mere waiver of the tenant's right to remove the fixtures in consideration 

 of the landlord's agreeing to pay for them, according to a valuation to 

 be made afterwards. The plaintiff did not give the defendant 

 a right to the fixtures before the expiration of the term, but he 

 agreed to waive his right to sever them during the term, and to sell 

 them to her at the end of the term. Parlte B. said, "The case bears 

 a strong analogy to that of a contract by a tenant to give up to his 

 landlord or successor those growing crops to which he is entitled by the 

 common law or custom of the country as emblements, and the value of 

 which, after the contract is executed, may certainly be recovered on a 

 count of crops bargained and sold. (See MaijfiM v. Wadsley.) We 

 are quite satisfied that this is not a sale of any interest in land, and the 

 judgment of the Court, and particularly of Mr. Justice Littledale in 

 Evans v. Eobcrts, upon the subject of growing crops, is an authority to 

 the same eflTect." 



Payment of legacies out of sale of groiving crops. — Growing crops are 

 an interest in land within the statute of mortmain (13 & 14 Vict., c. 94). 

 And jHT Stuart V.C. : " If growing crops pass under a devise of land, 

 how is it possible to say that the legacies which the testator has given 

 to these charities would be paid out of monies arising from the sale of 

 pure personalty, if they were paid out of the sale of growing crops ? " 

 (Sgmons v. Marine Society.) 



Easement of " grass for a cow" creates no interest in land. — A gift by 

 will, dated in 1838, to J. M. " of the house she lives in, and grass for a 

 coiv in G field," part of another estate, passes an estate in fee in the 

 house, but does not create a permanent interest in the land of the other 

 estate. And per Sir J. Romilly M.R. : " The grass for a cow was not 

 necessary for the enjoyment of the house ; it passed no interest in the 

 land, but merely gave a personal right to Jane Malcolmson by way of 

 easement to pasture a cow on a field given absolutely to another, aa 

 long as she thought fit " {Reay v. RawUnson). 



Indiuisibte contract for interest in land. — In Hodgson v. Johnson 

 (Jurist, April 2, 1859), plaintiff and defendant agreed by word of mouth 

 that plaintiff should become tenant in his stead, of a brick yard, and 

 take the plant upon a valuation, and that defendant should settle with 



F 2 



