With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". In its ruling, the circuit court essentially found that there could have been a partial ademption, akin to the situation in Williamson v. Merritt, supra. The court also found, however, that another possibility is that there was no issue of ademption because appellant would receive the land as a devise. Under either scenario, the court found, the proceeds from the sale of the timber would become part of the residuary estate. First, addressing the possibility that there is no issue of ademption in this case, we agree with appellant that the removal of merchantable timber from real property is analogous to the removal of a portion of funds from a savings account as in Williamson, thus there is an issue of partial ademption. See also Taylor v. Goddard, 265 S.C. 327, 218 S.E.2d 246 (1975) (<HOLDING>); Bynum v. McDowell, 3 Tenn.App. 340 (1926)

A: holding the real estate sale proceeds
B: holding that the new jersey real estate licensing act is applicable to the sale of a company through a stock sale
C: holding witness not licensed as real estate appraiser could not testify as expert on real estate valuation where statute made it unlawful to engage in real estate appraisal without license
D: recognizing that sale of a cutting of timber from devised real estate was a partial ademption
D.