Court Opinion

ID: 9658949
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:23:36.04946+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:02.137959
License: Public Domain

HAMLIN, Justice
(dissenting).
I am compelled to disagree with the majority opinion.
Try as I will, I cannot agree with the conclusion that timber is recognized as a growing crop only for the purpose of taxation and not recognized as such when an innocent owner is deprived of his ownership and possession by another who is guilty of legal and moral bad faith.
It is well to remember that crops existed and were known as crops before Constitutions were even thought of. They existed by endowment of the Creator, and their *420status is merely reaffirmed by the passage of Constitutions and laws.
It is my view that plaintiffs are entitled to have this Court consider their contention that they are entitled to recover not less than $7,453.53, which amount, they claim, is equal to the manufactured value of the young trees unlawfully taken as lap pulp at the paper mill without deducting the cost of manufacture, and which amount, they further assert, is exactly comparable to the lumber value for the wrongful taking of mature trees (all of which, they contend, is amply supported by the testimony of the officials in charge of the International Paper Company’s Springhill Mill).
I respectfully dissent.