A. E. Ency. L. (2d Ed.) 318; 24 Cyc. 1070; Tiffany, L. T. vol. 2, sec. 251; Washburn, Real Property (6th Ed.), vol. 1, sec. 259; Bristow v. Carriger et al., 24 Okla. 329, 103 P. 596, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 451. Under practically all the authorities, however, when crops are mature and have been severed from the soil, they become personal property and belong to the tenant ( Wakefield v. Dyer, 14 Okla. 92, 76 P. 151; Phillips v. Keysaw, 7 Okla. 674, 56 P. 695); and there is authority that crops unsevered, but which are mature and ready for harvest, are personal property, and do not go with the land. Hecht v. Dettman, 56 Iowa, 679, 7 N.W. 495, 10 N.W. 241, 41 Am. Rep. 131; First National Bank v. Beegle, 52 Kan. 709, 35 P. 814, 39 Am. St. Rep. 365. But this court refused to follow these cases in Hartshorne v. Ingels, 23 Okla. 537, 101 P. 1045, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 531; but that case, it will be seen, was a case involving adverse possession, and was not a case between a landlord and his tenant.

"This court has held to the doctrine that, before crops grown upon realty could be regarded as personal property, it must not only have matured, but have been actually severed from the realty." These two cases are cited in Wakefield v. Dyer, 14 Okla. 92, 76 P. 151, with approval. In that case the court permitted the adverse claimant who had been evicted to retain the crops which were matured and had been severed from the soil, and again stated the rule to be that, where the crops have matured and have been severed, the same become personal property.