GROWING CROPS. Growing crops raised by the cultivation of man, are in certain cases personal chattels, and in others, part of the realty. A crop is to be considered as growing from the time the seed is put in the ground, at which time the seed is no longer a chattel, but becomes part of the realty, and passes with a sale of it; Wilk inson v. Ketler, 69 Ala. 435. If planted by the owner of the land, they are a part of the realty, but may by sale become personal chattels, if they are fit for harvest, and the sale contemplates their being cut and car ried off, and not a right in the vendee, to enter and cultivate. So even with trees; Clain v. Carpenter, 4 Mete. (Mass.) 580, 38 Am. Dec. 381 ; 9 B. & C. 561; Olmstead v. Niles, 7 N. H. 522; 11 Co. 50. The distinc tion has been made that growing crops of grain and annual productions raised by cul tivation and the industry of man are person al chattels; while trees, fruit, or grass and other natural products of the earth are parcel of the land; Green V. Armstrong, 1 Den. (N. Y.) 550. Matured apples are held personalty; Doty v. R. Co., 186 Mo. App. 254, 116 S. W. 1126. But if the owner in fee con veys land before the crop is severed, the crop passes with the land as appertaining to it; Powell v. Rich, 41 Ill. 466 ; Backinstoss v. Stahler's Adm'rs, 33 Pa. 254, 75 Am. Dec. 592; Bludworth v. Hunter, 9 Rob. (La.) 256 ; and the same rule applies to foreclosure sales; Lane v. King, 8 Wend. (N. Y.) 584, 24 Am. Dec. 105 ; Bittinger v. Baker, 29 Pa. 68, 70 Am. Dec. 154 ; Sherman v. Willet, 42 N. Y. 150. But before the foreclosure sale is confirmed, the purchaser has no title, with right to possession in the crops growing on the land at the time of sale, that will entitle him to maintain replevin therefor after they have been severed by the person in posses sion; Woehler v. Endter, 46 Wis. 301, 1 N. W. 329, 50 N. W. 1099. Though growing crops, unless reserved, pass under a convey ance of the land ; Carpenter v. Carpenter, 154 Mich. 100, 117 N. W. 598; In re Ander sen's Estate, 83 Neb. 8, 118 N. W. 1108, 131 Am. St. Rep. 613, 17 Ann. Cas. 941; they are subject to levy and sale the same as other personal property ; Erickson v. Paterson, 47 Minn. 525, 50 N. W. 699. If a tenant, who holds for a certain time, plant annual crops, or even trees in a nursery for the purposes of transplantation and sale, 'they are per sonal chattels when fit for harvest ; Miller v. Baker, 1 Metc. (Mass.) 27; Whitmarsh v.
Walker, 1 Metc. (Mass.) 313; 4 Taunt. 316. If planted by a tenant for an uncertain period, they are regarded, whether mature or not, in many respects as personal prop erty, but liable to become part of the realty if tenant voluntarily abandons or for feits possession of the premises; 5 Co. 116 a; Debow v. Colfax, 10 N. J. L. 128; Co. Litt. 55 ; Whipple v. Foot, 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 418, 421, note, 3 Am. Dec. 442. See Craddock v. Riddlesbarger, 2 Dana (Ky.) 206; Stam baugh v. Yeates, 2 Rawle (Pa.) 161; 1 Washb. R. P. 3.
See as to validity and effect of mortgages on crops planted and unplanted, MORTGAGE.
Between the lessor of lands and his lessee on shares, growing crops are personal prop erty, and they may be sold by parol as against a subsequent grantee, especially where the latter has notice of such sale ; Nuernberger v. Von Der Heidt, 39 Ill. App. 404. The grantor of farm lands may reserve the growing crops by oral agreement ; Kluse v. Sparks, 10 Ind. App. 444, 36 N. E. 914, 37 N. E. 1047.
A successful plaintiff in ejectment is en titled to a standing crop ; Hartshorne v. In gels, 23 Okl. 535, 101 Pac. 1045, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 531; Craig v. Watson, 68 Ga. 115; Cox v. Hamilton, 69 N. C. 30; Carlisle v. Killebrew, 89 Ala. '329, 6 South. 756, 6 L. R. A. 617; but not where he has recovered rent for the current year ; Gardner v. Ker sey, 39 Ga. 664, 99 Am. Dec. 484.
The measure of damages for the destruc tion of a crop planted, but not yet up, is the rental value of the land and the cost of the seed and labor; but when the crop is somewhat matured, so that the product can be fairly determined, the value thereof when destroyed is the measure of damages; Ohio & Mississippi Ry. Co. v. Nuetzel, 43 Ill. App. 108. Where a crop is lost through the wrongful act of another, the measure of damages is the market value of the crop less the cost of producing, harvesting, and marketing it ; Shotwell v. Dodge, 8 Wash. 337, 36 Pac. 254 ; Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Haskell, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 550, 23 S. W. 546.
See AWAY-GOING CROPS ; EMBLEMENTS; WAY-GOING CROPS.