Opinion ID: 1410612
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Trees.

Text: Plaintiffs contend that defendant breached the provision of the lease which provides that Lessees shall not suffer any strip or waste to the premises and shall not be entitled to cut or remove timber (which prohibition shall not apply to the cutting and removal of any dead or diseased trees or timber) both by having cut and removed laurel and madrone and also by having sold and removed fir, pine and cedar. In support of the allegation of breach in regard to the laurel and madrone, plaintiffs rely on the testimony of defendant on cross-examination that he had permitted others to cut and remove some laurel and madrone trees for firewood from the southwest and south-central portion of the property. Defendant also testified on cross-examination, however, that my lease says that I cannot cut timber and laurel is not timber. There is evidence that Paul Huff shared a similar definition of timber. In addition, the record discloses that defendant was authorized to clear portions of the southern part of the property. The testimony is in conflict, however, as to specifically what areas were permitted to be cleared. In support of the allegation of breach in regard to the fir, pine and cedar, plaintiffs rely on the testimony of Paul Huff that he counted ninety-seven stumps of douglas and white fir trees greater than seven inches in diameter which were cut and removed after the lease was executed on October 14, 1970. In addition, plaintiffs contend the evidence shows that although logging operations prior to that date had left the equivalent of one truckload of down timber on the ground, defendant had five truckloads of timber hauled off the property. Defendant, on the other hand, denied cutting any live fir or pine trees for timber, although he did admit cutting down dead ones and also cutting some live poles (smaller trees defendant was authorized to cut for fencing purposes). Defendant also offered the testimony of the logger who hauled off the five truckloads in August through December of 1971 to the effect that what was hauled was all down timber which by that time had been on the ground for approximately one and one-half years. It should be noted that the testimony of this logger that 4,000 to 4,400 board feet of timber were removed corresponds with the testimony of the logger who cut the timber prior to the lease that approximately 4,000 board feet of timber had been left on the ground. The trial court considered all such conflicting testimony and concluded that plaintiffs' allegations of breach in regard to the trees had not been substantiated. After reviewing the record, we agree with that finding.