Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/Sec-278-Manure-as-real-or-personal-property.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 20:35:23+00:00

Document:
How. Pr. (N. Y.) 189; Lewis v. Jones, 17 Pa. St. 267, 55 Am. Dec. 550.
In case the manure thus made from produce raised off the premises is mingled with that from the crops raised on the premises, the tenant will, according to occasional decisions (Lewis v Jones 17 Pa. 267, 55 Am. Dec. 550, Bonnell V. Allen, 53 Ind. 130) lose the right to remove any portion, while by others he may remove such portion of the common mass as may represent that made from produce raised off the premises. Nason v. Tobey, 182 Mass. 314, 94 Am. St. Rap. 659; 65 N. E 389; Pickering v. Moore, 67 N. H. 533, 31 L. R. A. 698, 68 Am. St. Rep 695, 22 Atl. 828.
8. Lassell v. Reed, 6 Me. 222; Goodrich v. Jones, 2 Hill (N. Y.) 142; Sawyer v. Twiss, 2C N. H. 345; Strong v. Doyle, 110 Mass. 92;Wetherbee v. Ellison, 19 Vt.
9. Webb v. Plummer, 2 Barn. & Ald. 746; Roberts v. Barker, 1 Cromp & M. 808; Fletchei v. Herring, 112 Mass. 382; Hill v. De Rochemont, 48 N. H. 87; Middle-brook v. Corwin, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 169. In England the rights of the landlord and tenant are apparently always settled by custom or agreement, and hence arises the lack of English decisions on the subject.
10. Needham v. Allison, 24 N. H. 355; Lewis v. Jones, 17 Pa. 267, 55 Am. Dec. 550. And see Corey v. Bishop, 48 N. H. 146; Roberts v. Jones, 71 S. C. 404.
2 L. R. A. N.' S. 640, 25 S. E. 240; Gallagher v. Shipley, 2-i Md. 418. 87 Am. Dec. 611.

References: v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.