The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1908-10-07


signable, hence plaintiff could not
acquire such easements in gross from
D. w. Alderman & Sons Co. or its as
signs by assignment.
hold that insofar as plaintiff has
and used the tramroad in
question. on and over the lands Of
for purposes other than
the removal Of pine timber from said
lands. II has trespassed upon said
lands and Is liable to the defendants
In damages.
The master reports that at the time
Of the construction Of plaintiffs tram
road there was not upon defendants
lands any Of the timber purchased by
d. w. Alderman & Sons Company.
That II had all been previously cut
and hauled of. AS to this, think the
master slightly erred. While It does
appear from the testimony that al
most all OF the pine timber on this
land had been removed before build
ing this tramroad. yet 1t does also ap-
pear therefrom that at that time there
was O. small quantity OF scattering
timber still standing which has since
been cut and removed by this tram
road. ~
That such scattering timber was on
the western side or half OF this tract
Of land. and south OF the branch and
Il was more convenient to handle said
timber on this tramroad
than 1t was to cart or transport 1t TO
the tramroad on the eastern side of
this tract Of land. constructed and
used for the purpose Of getting out
the timber from the northeastern cor
ner OF the said tract Of land where
the much larger part OF said timber
had been situate.
The evidence does not, however,
show that II was more convenient or
less expensive to build this new tram
road In order to set out this standing
timber than 1t would have
been to have carted or hauled It to
the old tramroad on the eastern side.
Nor does Il show that the purpose
In building this new tram road was to
enable plaintiff to get out this scat
terins timber. On the contrary I ven
ture to think that careful reading
Of all the testimony will convince any
candid mind that the plaintiffs chief,
lf'not its only purpose. in constructing
said tramway was TO enable Il to
reach and set out timber from other
lands. gN4txf gftFEgfr
The master practically 90 finds, and
In such findinv concur and I find
that except the trasportation Of the
small quantity Of scattered timber of
defendants lands. plaintiff has used
said tramway since its construction
for purposes other than removal Of
Timber from defendants land. That
such use was without right under the
defendants contract with d. w. Al
derman 4 Sons Company, and was
unlawful. True, plaintiff has done this,
N the master finds. under the con-
scientious belief that Il was acting
strictly within its rights under the
there has been no exception
20 such nnding. and II must stand.
md such finding relieves this case Of
al claim against plaintiff by defend
mt for punitive damage. but such
indink practically does not relieve tho
PLAINTIFF from liability for actual dam
'ges. nor does 1t Justify the court ~
equity In stretching forth its strong
urn to prevent defendants' interfe.-
snce with such unlawful use of their
shds. He who comes into tho court
'f equity seeking It's aid. II he would
must come with clean hands;
and II goes without saying that II
plaintiffs purpose In constructing the
'rafnroad was solely. chiefly. or even
partly to use 1t for purposes other
han the removal Of pine timber from
lands. and II II has siGce
used II for such other and unlawful
1t cannot now have the aid
II the court Of equity In restraining
iefendants from interfering with such
unlawful use.
Even II said tramway We're built
with a lawful pourpose Of removing
The pine timber from the defendants
ands. and plaintiff has since been US
ing II for the unlawful purpose If
timber from other lands.
plaintiff cannot have the aid Of the
court OF equity In preventing defend
ants from interfering with such I'M