MEANING OF MANURE MADE ON FARM. 339 



during his tenancy remove a dung-heap, and at the time of so doing 

 dig into and remove virgin soil, the latter becomes by operation of law 

 the personal property of the landlord, and is so completely revested in 

 him as to enable him to bring trespass de bonis asjportatis and d, fortiori 

 trover. 



Where at the sale of the defendant's stock the tenant of an adjoining 

 farm bought two cows, and by the defendant's permission left them in 

 a shippon in the defendant's farm-yard for some weeks, bringing pro- 

 vender from his own farm to feed them, it was held that their manure 

 was manure made on the farm, and that the removal of it by the cows' 

 owner to spread on his own farm was a breach of a condition in the de- 

 fendant's lease, " to put and spread all the manure and compost then 

 collected in the midden-stead or any other part of the farm on the 

 meadow land, and not to sell, cart, or convey away any dung, compost, 

 or manure from the said farm " {H indie v. Follett). 



Where the outgoing tenant is lound by his coveiumt not to carry away 

 the dung, his property, off the premises, but to sell it to the incoming 

 tenant at a valuation, he has a right of on-stand on the farm for it, till 

 he can sell it to the incoming tenant ; and as the possession and 

 property must remain in him in the meantime, he may maintain tres- 

 pass against the incoming tenant for taking it before it is valued {Beaty 

 V. Gibbons). 



In iSmith V. Chance, which was an action of assumpsit for hay sold 

 and delivered, one of the terms on which the plaintiff held the land was 

 that he tvoidd consume the hay on the premises, or for every load of hay 

 removed ivould bring two waggon-loads of Worcester mucli, and spread the 

 same. When the plaintiff quitted, part of a rick of hay was left stand- 

 ing, which he sold to the defendant, but without mentioning the muck 

 agreement. The new tenant, in consequence of some dispute with the 

 plaintiff as to terms, would not let the defendant carry away the hay 

 till he had bought the manure. At the end of a month, permission 

 was given ; and as the hay had been spoiled in the meanwhile, by 

 exposure to the weather, the defendant refused to take or pay for it. 

 The jury found for the plaintiff, but the Court of Queen's Bench 

 ordered a new trial, on the ground that although by the agreement 

 the plaintiff was not bound, while in possession of the land, to bring 

 on the manure till after the hay had been removed, still, after the 

 expiration of the plaintiff's tenancy, the then succeeding tenant might 

 make the bringing on of the dung a condition precedent to carrying off 

 the hay. 



The following nmnxire agreement was held by the Court of Exchequer 

 to be a contract relating to the sale of goods, wares, or merchandize 



z 2 



