
    Tripp vs. Haesig.
    A warranty deed of lands carries with it the corn standing thereon, whether ripe or unripe
    Error to Kalamazoo Circuit.
   Opinion by

Graves, J.

Tripp sued Haesig for the alleged conversion of a quantity of standing corn, which Tripp claimed as his property, and on the trial a verdict passed for Haesig Tripp sold and conveyed by warranty deed a farm on which he had lived and raised the corn in question, in the season of 1865, to defendant, about December 13,1865, while the corn was still standing. No exception or reservation was made in the deed. Tripp claimed that the corn being over-ripe when the deed was executed,.did not pass. The Court directed the jury that the corn, though ripe, and no longer deriving nourishment from the ground, would, if attached to the soil, pass by sequence of the land-

Held, That there was no error in this charge. Whether the corn would pass or not could no more depend on its maturity or immaturity than the passage of a standing forest tree by conveyance of the land would depend upon whether the tree was living or dead. This question depends upon whether the crop is at the time attached to the soil, and not upon its condi-. tion as to maturity.

Judgment below affirmed with costs.

Christiancy, J.,

concurred, but said: “ Had it appeared in the case that it was the custom of the country where the farm was situated (as it is in some of the Western States) to keep the ripe corn in the field for winter, or till wanted for use or market, and to be taken only on the like occasion or for the like reasons as if stored in the crib or granary, thus using the field merely as a substitute for such crib or granary, J am inclined to think I might have agreed in the opinion intimated by the Supreme Court of Illinois, in Powell vs. Rich, 41 Ill. 466.  