. Florists' review [microform]. Floriculture. 18 The Floists* Review Septemueii 8, 1921 there was a verbal agreement for their reservation, would be to permit him to prove a verbal contract, inconsistent with tlie legal import of that executed by the parties under their hands and seals. This the law ; In the case of Maples vs. Millon, 31 Conn. 598, it was decided by the Con- necticut Supreme Court of Errors that trees and shrubs planted in a nursery for the temporary purpose of cultivation and growth became subject to a real estate mortgage covering the premises. The court said: &
. Florists' review [microform]. Floriculture. 18 The Floists* Review Septemueii 8, 1921 there was a verbal agreement for their reservation, would be to permit him to prove a verbal contract, inconsistent with tlie legal import of that executed by the parties under their hands and seals. This the law ; In the case of Maples vs. Millon, 31 Conn. 598, it was decided by the Con- necticut Supreme Court of Errors that trees and shrubs planted in a nursery for the temporary purpose of cultivation and growth became subject to a real estate mortgage covering the premises. The court said: "Trees and shrubs are generally as much a part of the realty as the soil itself, whether growing upon it natural- ly, or planted and cultivated by the hand of man. It is, therefore, incum- b(;ut upon the party claiming that they are personal chattels, which do not pass with the transfer of the land, to show that such was not the intention of the ; A conclusion similar to this was reached by the Colorado Supreme court in the case of Dubois vs. Bowles, 30 Colo. 44, except that it was there held that during tlie period for redemption from a mortgage, the mortgagor is en- titled to sell, in the ordinary course of trade, such nursery stock as i^ suitable for transplanting. In Adams vs. Beadle, 47 Iowa 439, the Iowa Supreme court declared that a mortgage of premises on which nurs- ery stock was growing covered such stock, as against a chattel mortgage given by the mortgagor against the stock. Trees in Nursery. In passing, it is interesting to note the decision of the appellate division of the New York Supreme court, in the case of Hamilton vs. Austin, 36 Hun Eeports, 138. There it was decided that, although trees grown in a nursery ex- pressly for sale as merchandise are cov- ered by a mortgage on the land, yet it is not waste for a tenant of nursery grounds, who has entered thereon after a mortgage has been given upon them, to remove and sell, in good faith, and in
Size: 2538px × 984px
Photo credit: © Library Book Collection / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookcentury1900, bookdecad, booksubjectfloriculture, bookyear1912
