It is here insisted that the bill of sale from John Dickson to, the defendant in error was void, because the land on which the trees were then standing was the homestead of Dickson, and his wife did not join in the conveyance. While it is true that standing timber is generally regarded as part of the realty, yet the owner may by contract constructively cause a severance, and for the purpose of a mortgage or sale convert it into personalty. Boykin v. Rosenfield, 69 Tex. 118,9 S.W. 318" court="Tex." date_filed="1887-10-28" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/boykin-v-rosenfield--co-4895495?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="4895495">9 S.W. 318; Montgomery v. Peach River Lumber Co., 54 Tex. Civ. App. 143" court="Tex. App." date_filed="1909-02-24" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/montgomery-v-peach-river-lumber-company-3926835?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3926835">54 Tex. Civ. App. 143, 117 S.W. 1061" court="Tex. App." date_filed="1909-02-24" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/montgomery-v-peach-river-lumber-company-3926835?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3926835">117 S.W. 1061; 3 Washburn on Real Property, p. 301. It has also been held that the husband alone may convey an easement in the homestead, provided it does not materially interfere with the use and enjoyment of the homestead. Randall v. T. C. Railroad Co., 63 Tex. 586" court="Tex." date_filed="1885-02-06" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/randall-v-texas-central-ry-co-4894722?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="4894722">63 Tex. 586; C. T. M. C. Ry. Co. v. Titteringron, 84 Tex. 218" court="Tex." date_filed="1892-03-26" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/chicago-texas--mexican-central-railway-co-v-titterington-3909902?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3909902">84 Tex. 218, 19 S.W. 472" court="Tex." date_filed="1892-03-26" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/chicago-texas--mexican-central-railway-co-v-titterington-3909902?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3909902">19 S.W. 472, 31 Am. St. Rep. 39; Purdie v. Railway Co., 144 S.W. 364" court="Tex. App." date_filed="1912-02-03" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/purdie-v-stephenville-n--s-t-ry-co-3962939?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3962939">144 S.W. 364. There is nothing in the evidence in this case that requires the finding that the use of the land as a homestead was interfered with or its value impaired by the sale of the timber to the defendant in error.
The judgment is affirmed.