HARVARD LAW REVIEW VOL. Vlll. FEBRUARY 25, 1895. NO. 7. SALES OF STANDING TREES. ARE sales of standing trees within the Statute of Frauds? Do they involve any "interest in or concerning land"? This question arises in various ways: sometimes in a suit by the buyer against the seller for breach of contract in not allowing him to remove the trees; sometimes in a suit by the seller for the price of the trees which the buyer has or has not taken away; sometimes in actions of trespass by the seller against the buyer for entering on the land and cutting the trees, either after or be- fore having been forbidden to do so, or vice versa ; and occasion- ally in an action between the buyer and a subsequent grantee of the land before the trees have been cut, and either with or without notice of the prior sale of the trees. Different considerations may apply under these different circumstances, which may in part ac- count for some of the apparently conflicting views expressed on this question. It may not be possible to reconcile all the decisions, much less all the dicta, on this subject, but the general drift of the cases seems to support several propositions. I. The first is where the vendor has expressly stipulated that the trees may remain standing on the land a given number of years, if the purchaser elects. Here, as they may, and probably will, de- rive more or less growth and increase from the soil, there is some reason to hold that the sale involves an " interest in land." In fact it has been considered a sale not only of the trees as they then 49
