Case ID: ga_150/html/0768-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Gilbert, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gleaton v. Aultman.
    No. 2002.
    December 18, 1920.
    Injunction. Before Judge Eve. Worth superior court. March 20, 1920.
    Mrs. Douglas, tenant for life (about fifty-eight years old), in consideration of $100 leased to Gleaton for a term of three years all of the timber, “ for the purpose of boxing and using for turpéntine purposes,” on the north half of a land lot containing about 245 or more acres, of which about 100 acres were in cultivation. Aultman, owning an interest of two thirds in the remainder estate, obtained an interlocutory injunction preventing Grleaton “from further cutting, cupping, and working said timber for turpentine purposes.” There was an issue of fact and a conflict of testimony as to whether the taking of turpentine as purposed, and by the methods to be used, would amount to waste and a permanent injury to the trees and to the freehold; and whether such use of the timber was such as a prudent person would exercise for its protection. There was testimony that the life-tenant intended to put into cultivation practically all of the woodland; that clearing and cultivating the land would greatly increase its value, rather than injure or damage it; that the timber thereon was thin and not very valuable, it having been previously boxed for turpentine and cut for cross-ties and milling; etc. On the other hand there was testimony that there was a thick growth of timber that was healthy, growing rapidly, and becoming more valuable daily; that to cut and cup it for turpentine would retard its growth, expose it to ravages of fire, and sap its vitality; that the farm and fencing were in poor condition, and to cut and cup the growing timber would leave the farm without sufficient timber in after years; etc.
   Gilbert, J.

Under the pleadings and the evidence the judge oí the superior court did not abuse his discretion in granting an interlocutory injunction. Judgment affirmed.

Sll the Justices concur.

Passmore cG Forehand, for plaintiff in error,

cited: Civil Code, § 3666; Guin v. Hilton &c. Co., 6 Ga. App. 487, and cit.; Smith v. Smith, 105 Ga. 111; Woodward v. Gates, 38 Ga. 206; 40 Cyc. 508.

Perry & Williamson, contra,

cited: Civil Code, §§ 3666, 3497, 5493; Gray L. Co. v. Gaskin, 122 Ga. 342; Kollock v. Webb, 113 Ga. 762; Camp v. Dixon, 112 Ga. 872; Brown v. Martin, 137 Ga. 338, and cit.; Trammell v. Johnson, 54 Ga. 340, 344; Griswold v. Greer, 18 Ga. 545; 40 Cyc. 512.