Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/Sec-283-Destruction-of-trees-and-timber.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 05:49:10+00:00

Document:
Trees are, for the purpose of the law of waste, divided in England into "timber" trees and trees not timber. Some trees, such as oak, ash, and elm, seem to be invariably regarded as timber, but other trees may be, and frequently are, timber by the custom of the particular neighborhood. Trees are not, however, considered timber until twenty years of age, and, by custom, may require even a greater age in order to be so considered.49 This distinction between timber trees and trees not timber has, in that country, important results. Timber trees are considered as part of the inheritance, and consequently a tenant has no right to cut them except upon land where it has been the cusa different view was taken as to the rights of a life tenant.
46. Gaines v. Green Pond Iron Min. Co., 32 N. J. Eq. (5 Stew.) 86; Bagot v. Bagot, 32 Beav. 509. See Stoughton v. Leigh, 1 Taunt. 402.
Iron Min. Co., 33 N. J. Eq. (6 Stew.) 603; Irwin v. Covode, 24 Pa. 162, 62 Am. Dec. 372; Findlay v. Smith, 6 Munf. (Va.) 134, 8 Am. Dec. 733.
48. Lewis v. Godson, 15 Ont. 252. See dictum to the same effect in Dearden v. Evans, 5 Mees. & W. 11.
49. Co. Litt. 53 a; Bewes. Waste, 98; Honywood v. Hony-wood, L. R. 18 Eq. 306; Dashwood v. Magniac  3 Ch. 306.
50. Perrot v. Perrot. 3 Atk. 94; Ferrand v. Wilson, 4 Hare, 344; Dashwood v. Magniac  3 Ch. 306.
51. Co. Litt. 53 a; Bewes, Waste, 58; Phillips v. Smith, 14 Mees. & W. 589.
52. Co. Litt. 53 a; Herlaken-den's Case, 4 Coke, 62.
53. Honywood v. Honywood, L. R. 18 Eq. 306.
54. Bewes, Waste, 95; Co. Litt. 53 a.
55. Co. Litt. 53 a; Honywood v. Honywood, L. R. 18 Eq. 309; Phillips v. Smith, 14 Mees. & W. 589.
56. Dawson v. Coffman, 28 Ind. 220; Cannon v. Barry, 59 Miss. 289; Disher v. Disher, 45 Neb. 100, 63 N. W. 368; Jackson v. Brown-son, 7 Johns (N. Y., 227, 5 Am. Dec. 218; Kidd v. Dennison, 6 Barb. (N. Y.) 9; King v. Miller, 99 N. C. 583, 6 S. E. 660; Sayers v. Hoskinson, 110 Pa. 473, 1 Atl. 308; Owen v. Hyde, 6 Yerg. (Tenn.) 334, 27 Am. Dec. 467; Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, 59 Wis. 557, 18 N. W. 513; Drake v. Wigle, 24 U. C. C. P. 405.
Miss. 289; Davis v. Gilliam, N. C. (5 Ired Eq.) 308; King v. Miller, 99 N. C. 583, 6 S. E. 660; Keller v. Eastman, 11 Vt. 293; Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, 59 Wis. 557, 18 N. W. 513.
58. Rutherford v. Wilson, 95 Ark. 246, 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 763, 129 S. W. 534; Warren County v. Cans 80 Miss. 76, 31 So. 539; Proffit v. Henderson, 29 Mo. 325; Disher v. Disher, 45 Neb. 100, 63 N. W. 368; Jackson v. Brownson, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 227, 5 Am. Dec. 258; Mooers v. Wait, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 104; Davis v. Gilliam, 40 N. C. (5 Ired. Eq.) 308; Johnson's Adm'r v. Johnson, 2 Hill Eq. (S. CI.) 277, 29 Am. Dec. 72.
Although a life tenant had no right to cut timber, he was regarded as entitled to a life interest in a fund consisting of damages for destruction of timber and the proceeds of sale. Kenis-ton v. Gorrell, 74 N. H. 53, 64 Atl. 1101. See post, Sec. 291.
S. E. 135; Modlin v. Kennedy, 53 Ind. 267; Noyes v. Stone, 163 Mass. 490, 40 N. E. 856; Moss Point Lumber Co. v. Board of Supervisors of Harrison County, 89 Miss. 448, 42 So. 290; Davis v. Clark, 40 Mo. App. 515; Johnson v. Johnson, 18 N. H. 594; More-houe v. Cotheal. 22 N. J. L. 521; Goldsboro Lumber Co. v. Hines Bros. Lumber Co. 153 N. C. 49. 68 S. E. 929; Thomas v. Thomas, 166 N. C. 627, 82 S. E. 1032.
60. Armstrong v. Wilson, 60 111 236 Cook v. Cook, 11 Gray (Mass.) 123.
61. Drown v. Smith, 52 Me. 141; Cannon v. Barry, 59 Miss. 289, Chase v. Hazelton, 7 N. H. 171; Norris v. Laws, 150 N. C. 599, 64 N. E. 499; Keeler v. Eastman, 11 Vt. 293; Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, 59 Wis. 557, 18 N. W. 513.
62. Proffit v. Henderson, 29 Mo. 329; Morehouse v. Cotheal. 22 N. J. Law (2 Zab.) 521; Mc-Cullough v. Irvine's Ex'rs, 13 Pa." 438; Drown v. Smith, 52 Me. 141; Findlay v. Smith, 6 Munf. (Va.) 134, 8 Am. Dec. 733.
63. Powell v. Cheshire, 70 Ga.
357, 48 Am. Rep. 572; Duncombe v. Felt, 81 Mich. 332, 45 N. W. 1004; Hastings v. Crunckleton, 3 Yeates (Pa.) 261; McLeod v. Dial, 63 Ark. 10, 37 S. W. 306.
64. Bellows v. McGinnis, 17 Ind. 64; Duncombe v. Felt, 81 Mich. 332, 45 N. W. 1004; Silva v. Garcia, 65 Cal. 591; Co. Litt. 53 a; Bewes, Waste, 95. Allowing cattle to injure fruit trees is waste. Warder v. Henry, 117 Mo. 530, 23 S. W. 776. Welland v. Strickland, 161 Mich. 235, 126 N. W. 471.
65. Savers v. Hoskinson, 110 473, 1 Atl. 308; Keeler v. Eastman, 11 Vt. 293; King v. Miller, 99 N. C. 583, 6 S. E. 660.
66. See Ford v. Erskine, 50 Me. 227; White v. Cutler, 17 Pick. (Mass.) 248, 28 Am. Dec 296; Clark v. Holden, 7 Grey, (Mass.) 8, 66 Am. Dec. 450; Chase v. Hazelton, 7 N. H. 171; Clemence v. Steere, 1 R. I. 272, 53 Am. Dec. 621.
In Kentucky it has been said that it can be cut only for domestic purposes, McCoy v. Ferguson, 164 Ky. 136, 175 S. W. 23; and not for commercial purposes. Kentucky River Consol. Coal Co. v. Frazier, 161 Ky. 374, 170 S. W. 986; Stepp v. Lowe, 167 Ky. 631, 181 S. W. 352. And in North Carolina cutting has been said to be justified only for repairs. Thomas v. Thomas, 166 N. C. 627, 82 S. E. 1032. But see Norris v. Laws, 150 N. C. 599, 64 S. E. 499.
68. See McDaniel v. Callan, 75 Ala. 327.
69. Den. v. Kinney, 5 N. J. Law (2 Southard) 552. So where a mine was leased with the right to smelt ore therefrom. Wilson v. Smith, 13 Tenn. (5 Yerg.) 381.
70. Findlay v. Smith, 6 Munf. (Va.) 134, 8 Am. Dec. 773.
71. Co. Litt. 41b, 53b; Harris v. Goslin, 3 Har. (Del.) 340; Wallers v. Hutchin's Adm'r, 29 Ind. 136; Calvert v. Rice, 91 Ky. 533, 16 S. W. 351; Hubbard v. Shaw, 12 Allen (Mass.) 120; Smith v. Jew-ett, 40 N. II. 530; Gardiner v. Der-ring, 1 Paige (N. Y.) 573; Wright v. Roberts, 22 Wis. 161. The cases on the subject are collected in a note:n 68 L. R. A. 641.
72. Co. Litt. 53b; Simmons v. Norton, 7 Bing. 640; Doe d. Foley v. Wilson, 11 East, 56; Johnson v. Johnson, 18 N. H. 594; Padelford v. Padelford, 24 Mass. (7 Pick.) 152: Phillips v. Allen, 89 Mass. (7 Allen) 115. See Anderson v. Cowan, 125 Iowa, 259, 68 L R. A. 641. 106 Am. St. Rep. 303, 101 N. W. 92.
73. Co. Litt. 53 b.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.