Philip and julia langfords own a nursery that sells plants, tress and gardening equipment. last spring they recived an shipment, of young dogwood trees and had no space for all of them in the nursery, they planted ten of the trees in the backyard of their recidenci, four feet apart, with the intention of moving them to the nursery as soon as space was avilable. two months later, they sold their recidenci to Wilbur and Marcie Cliff, who did not plan to move in until the fall. the dogwood trees were not mentioned during the negotiations. the langfords did not remove the trees prior to the sale because there was stilll no room in the nursery, but they planned to do so before the cliffs move in. the cliffs assumed that the trees were part of the realty and have refused to allowd the langfords to remoe them. the langdords have consulted you regarding the owner ship pf the trees. you have found the following two cases.

Stafford National Bank v. Dinesen (1958)

Eric Dinesen owned property, including 30 acres of bogs on which he grew cranberry bushes. he defaulted on a morgage help by standford national bank, which now has title to the real state. dinesen attempted to dig up and transplant the cranbery busehes to another tract of land he owns. the banks filed suit, claming that the bushes are part of the real estate and no llonger dinesen property. dinesen appeals from the trial courts decision awarding ownership of the cranberry to the bank. this is a case of first impression in this state. at common law, whatever was affixed to the land, including plants and trees, was part of the land. crops, however, even thoguht growing in the soild, were consider personal property if that was the intent of the owner. the cranberry bushes in this case are not crops becuase there is no intent to harvest them annaually. the porpuse is to harvest the berries, not the plants themselves. the busshes are therefore part of the realty and belong to the bank. affirmeed.

Updike v, Teague (1995)

Leslie Updike's action against William Teague for the conversion of nursery stock was dismissed by the trial court for failure to state a cause of action. Updike had entered into a contract with Teague for the sale of certain reai estate. After Updike defaulted on the contract, Teague took possession of the land. Updike owned a nursery, which was located on the property. He sup plied orchards with fruit trees and used the land to grow other young trees for resale. After the default, Teague refused to allow Updike to remove the nursery stock and sold it himself. Updike claims the trees were his personal property because he did not intend for them to be part of the realty. He stated that the trees were planted close together in rows and that the planting was temporary, usually for no longer than a year, and for the purpose of maintaining them until they were sold. The trial court applied the traditional common law rule that plants and trees growing in the soil are part of the land and belong to the landowner. We believe these trees are more properly characterized as stock in trade, which is defined as goods and chattels that a merchant obtains for the purpose of resale and is considered personal property. Trees offered for sale must necessarily be kept in the soil. Updike placed them there for the sole purpose of keeping them alive prior to sale. They were therefore the personal property of Updike. Reversed.

1. State the common law rule and the exceptions.

2. describe the law relevant to each exeeption.

3. explaing your analysis of any issues or sub-issues based on your description of the law.