Story v. Christin
14 Cal. 2d 592, 125 A.L.R. 1402, 95 P.2d 925 (1939)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Nursery stock planted by a vendee-in-possession, with the mutual understanding and intent of the parties that it would be removed and sold rather than permanently annexed to the land, constitutes personal property and can be the subject of a conversion claim, even after the land sale contract is cancelled.
Facts:
- The appellant leased real estate from the respondents and used it to grow young orange and walnut trees.
- The appellant later entered into a contract to purchase the land from the respondents, which was subsequently replaced by another contract granting more time for payments.
- While in possession under these contracts, the appellant grew nursery stock for sale.
- The appellant planted the nursery trees closely together, making it impossible for them to remain in place and develop into a producing orchard or grove.
- The respondents knew of the appellant's intention to sell and remove these trees, and both parties understood that the nursery trees would remain the appellant's personal property, not permanently affixed to the land.
- Many of the trees had been sold for future delivery, and the appellant was attempting to sell the remainder.
- Upon the appellant's failure to pay interest and taxes, the respondents successfully sued to cancel the land purchase contract.
- After the respondents regained possession of the property, they prevented the appellant from removing the nursery stock and converted it to their own use.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellant failed to pay interest and taxes as required under a land purchase contract with respondents.
- Respondents successfully sued to cancel appellant's land purchase contract in a prior action (Christin v. Story, 119 Cal. App. 326 [6 Pac. (2d) 301]).
- Respondents were placed in possession of the land under a writ of assistance.
- Appellant (plaintiff) then brought the present action against respondents (defendants) in superior court, alleging conversion of nursery stock.
- The superior court dismissed appellant's action, ruling that the complaint did not state a cause of action.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does nursery stock planted by a land vendee for the purpose of removal and sale, where both parties understood it would remain personal property, retain its character as personal property after the land sale contract is cancelled, thereby allowing a conversion claim against the vendor?
Opinions:
Majority - Edmonds, J.
Yes, nursery stock planted by a land vendee for the purpose of removal and sale, with the mutual understanding and intent of the parties that it would remain personal property, does retain its character as personal property after the land sale contract is cancelled, allowing a conversion claim against the vendor. The court reasoned that while the ancient common law maxim quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit (whatever is affixed to the soil belongs to the soil) was rigid, exceptions developed due to injustice. Nursery stock, unlike annual crops, does not fall under the traditional definition of 'crop' because it is not an annual profit of the soil but is planted for eventual transplantation and sale. Instead, such trees possess the characteristics of 'stock in trade' or merchandise, similar to goods a merchant holds for sale, with the ground serving as a temporary storage and maturing place. The crucial determinant is the intention of the parties that the trees were placed on the land solely for removal and sale and not as a permanent annexation to the realty. The court cited previous California cases (e.g., Asato v. Emirzian, Kirkman v. Sargent, City of Los Angeles v. Hughes) which, while not directly controlling, indicated that nursery stock should be classified as personal property when the parties intend it to be. The appellant's complaint sufficiently alleged these facts, stating a valid cause of action for conversion of stock in trade.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the legal classification of nursery stock in California, distinguishing it from traditional 'crops' and 'fixtures' by emphasizing the intent of the parties. It establishes that items physically attached to land can be considered personal property if they are intended as 'stock in trade' for removal and sale, rather than permanent improvements. This ruling provides important protection for nurserymen and similar businesses, allowing them to recover their marketable inventory even if their land possession terminates, and sets a precedent for prioritizing commercial intent over strict physical annexation in determining property character.
