From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Killmore v. Howlett

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 1, 1872
48 N.Y. 569 (N.Y. 1872)

Opinion

Argued January 9, 1872

Decided May term, 1872

G.N. Kennedy for the appellant.

D. Pratt for the respondent.


If the standing trees upon the lot, which by the contract were to have been cut by the defendant and made into cord-wood, and delivered by him to the plaintiff at Syracuse, had, instead of the wood to be made therefrom, been sold in their standing condition, "rooted in the soil," the right of the plaintiff to enter and fell them, and make them into wood, would have been a sale of an interest in the land, and without being evidenced by writing would have been void. ( Green v. Armstrong, 1 Denio, 550, 553 et seq.) This was not a sale of the trees in their standing condition, but rather a contract by the defendant to bestow work and labor upon his own material, and deliver it in its improved condition to the plaintiff. In a similar case, LITTLEDALE, J., in Smith v. Surnam (9 B. C., 561, 566) held it not to be the intention to give the vendee any property in the trees until they were severed from the freehold. Apply the rule contended for by the defendant, and a writing would be indispensable to the validity of a contract by the owner of a peat bed or a sandbank to deliver a load from it. Such contracts are never regarded as carrying an interest in the real estate from which the thing sold was to be taken by the owner. The judgment should be affirmed.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

Killmore v. Howlett

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 1, 1872
48 N.Y. 569 (N.Y. 1872)
Case details for

Killmore v. Howlett

Case Details

Full title:DANIEL B. KILLMORE, Respondent, v . ALFRED A. HOWLETT, Appellant

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: May 1, 1872

Citations

48 N.Y. 569 (N.Y. 1872)

Citing Cases

Walston v. Lowry

"It was held in the case of Smith v. Surman, 9 B. C., 561, that where the owner of land agreed with another…

VOLK v. OLSEN

The buildings as they stood were assuredly real estate. Not being in writing the contract was void. So far as…