?^M 





:the>' 



«» 



■ #i»f<> wff - 



mrm 



GETTING PAY 



FOR PLANTING 



To increase our success as florists we must learn nut only how to grow 

 better flowers, but also how to sell more of them, and, in addition, how to 

 collect the money for them with the smallest margin of loss. This article 

 concerns the last-named subject, fully as important as the others. 





CCASIONALLY it becomes 

 the unpleasant task of a 

 florist or nurseryman who 

 has set out shrubs and 

 trees on residential prem- 

 ises to have recourse to 

 law to collect his bill. 

 The peculiar nature of this 

 type of work and of the 

 materials used gives such 

 suits a different aspect from those most 

 numerous in the courts. It would be 

 well, therefore, if florists and nursery- 

 men knew the attitude of the law in 

 such cases. This is fully discussed in 

 this article in connection with the con- 

 sideration of a particular case cited by 

 a reader of The Eeview. 

 The case presented is as 

 follows: A, a nurseryman, 

 sold to B some shrubs to 

 be planted on residential 

 property, which the latter 

 had contracted to buy. B 

 failed to keep up his pay- 

 ments on the property and 

 it reverted to the seller, C, 

 who afterward resold the 

 property to D. D has be- 

 come the absolute owner. 

 The question is whether or 

 not A can compel C or D 

 to pay for the shrubs. If 

 not, can A remove the 

 shrubs or enforce a lien 

 against the property? The 

 account is not two years 

 old at this time. 



It is quite clear, on the 

 facts presented, that nei- 

 ther C nor D is personally 

 liable to A for the bill in- 

 curred by B. The credit 

 appears to have been ex- 

 tended to B, and neither C 

 nor D could become person- 

 ally liable without having 

 made an express or implied promise to 

 pay. It is a fundamental principle of 

 law that one cannot become indebted on 

 a contract obligation without his con- 

 sent. 



Can Shrubs Be Removed? 



The next question is: Can A remove 

 the shrubs? There is nothing to dis- 

 close his right to remove them, and 

 existence of the right is doubtful. We 

 surmise that the shrubs were sold on 

 open account, without reservation of 

 any contract lien. If so, that is de- 

 cisive against the right to remove them. 

 It would be decisive even as against B, 

 the original purchaser. Where one sells 

 personal property on open credit, with- 



out reserving title as security for pay- 

 ment of the price, absolute title vests in 

 the buyer, and his subsequent failure to 

 pay invests the seller with no lien 

 against the goods. The only qualifica- 

 tion of this rule is that, under the 

 statutes of many of the states, movable 

 property which has retained its iden- 

 tity as personalty may be seized in sat- 

 isfaction of a judgment obtained on ac- 

 count of the purchase price. We do 

 not believe that these laws would be 

 held to cover the cases where trees and 

 shrubs are sold and become affixed to 

 the real estate by planting. 



But, even if it should apjiear that A 

 reserved title to the shrubs by written 



Legal Right to Lien 



When florists, nurserymen or landscape 

 gardeners have made plantings of bedding 

 plants, shrubs or trees, they occa- 

 sionally find the collection of payment 

 therefor is hindered by change in legal title 

 to the property on which the planting was 

 made. What their legal rights are in such 

 cases is set forth in this article, prepared 

 for The Review by an attorney conversant 

 with horticultural legal tangles. 



agreement, that would not necessarily be 

 binding on C or D, although binding on 

 B. It may be that the agreement could 

 be enforced as against C if he still re- 

 mained the owner of the property, par- 

 ticularly if the shrubs could be removed 

 without leaving the real estate in a 

 damaged condition. But, as against D, 

 it seems quite clear, in the light of what 

 the courts have decided, that the shrubs 

 could not be romoved, unless D bought 

 the place with knowledge that the 

 shrubs had not been paid for and that 

 the seller of the same had reserved title 

 to secure payment of the price. And, 

 as to D, we do not believe that record- 

 ing of the contract reserving title to the 

 shrubs would be sufficient to put him on 



notice. He was entitled to assume, in 

 the absence of information to the con- 

 trary, that the shrubs were a part of the 

 real estate and if the real estate rec- 

 ords showed no lien on account of the 

 purchase price he would not be charged 

 with notice, although the contract 

 might be filed among the public records 

 affecting personal property. 



An Illinois Decision. 



These conclusions, so far as concerns 

 the point that D took good title to the 

 shrubs, is supported by the decision of 

 the Illinois Supreme court in tlie case 

 of Smith vs. Price, 39 111. 28. There it 

 was held that a contract purchaser of 

 land was entitled to enjoin 

 thd seller from removing 

 nursery stock from the 

 premises, although it had 

 been verbally agreed that 

 the seller might remove 

 it. If this is true of 

 nursery stock, there are 

 stronger reasons for apply- 

 ing the same and similar 

 rules to cases where trees, 

 shrubbery, etc., have been 

 permanently planted. The 

 Illinois court said in the 

 cited case: 



"While fruit trees and 

 ornamental shrubbery 

 grown upon premises leased 

 for nursery purposes would 

 probably be held to be per- 

 sonal property, as between 

 the landlord and tenant, yet 

 there is neither authority 

 nor reason for saying that, 

 as between vendor and ven- 

 dee, such trees and shrub- 

 bery would not pass with a 

 sale of the land. They are 

 annexed to and a part of 

 the freehold. As between 

 vendor and vendee, even trade fixtures 

 and annual crops pass with the land 

 where possession is given. Under the 

 contract of sale and the delivery of 

 possession by Price to Smith, the latter 

 became the owner of the trees as well as 

 of the soil, and it would be a violation 

 of the most familiar rules of evidence 

 to receive proof of a verl)al arrange- 

 ment contemporaneous with the written 

 contract and impairing its legal ef- 

 fect. The parties, in executing the writ- 

 ten instrument, deliberately made it the 

 exclusive evidence of the terms of their 

 agreement. This instrument shows a 

 sale of the land in such terms as to pass 

 the trees. No reservation is made, and 

 to permit the ven<lor now to show that 



