Court Opinion

ID: 6406862
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-06-25 11:49:38.603975+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:51:14.389896
License: Public Domain

Shaw C. J.
delivered the opinion of the Court. The question in the present case, is whether a tenant in dower or her lessee has a right to cut wood upon the dower estate, for sale, to be removed and not used or consumed upen, or in connexion with the estate.
We think that a reference to a few principles, which have been adopted and acted upon in decided cases, in our own State, will lead to a satisfactory decision of this question.
It was in effect decided in Sargent v. Towne, 10 Mass. R. 307, that a tenant for life has no right to cut growing trees, that such cutting would be waste, and that wild and uncultivated land cannot be deemed estate yielding annual rents or profits.
In the case of Conner v. Shepherd, 15 Mass. R. 164, it was decided, that in this Commonwealth a widow is not entitled to dower in wild and uncultivated lands, held separately and distinct from houses, cultivated lands and other improved estate, first, because they yield no annual profit, and secondly, because the widow could not make the only beneficial use of them, of which they are capable, without committing waste and forfeiting the estate. These reasons apply as well to the case of a woodlot situated in the midst of a cultivated coun*251try, as to forest lands in their original state. But the chief justice, in delivering the opinion of the Court in this case, takes care in terms to limit its operation to the case of woodlands not used or connected with a cultivated farm, or other improved estate.
In the case of Webb v. Townsend, 1 Pick. 21, the general rule, that a widow is not dowable of wild lands, is confirmed, and it was placed more distinctly upon the ground, that as a widow is to be endowed, not according to the value of the land, but according to the value of the annual rents and profits, and as uncultivated lands yield no rents and profits, dower therein would be nugatory and of no value.
But in a subsequent case, White v. Willis, 7 Pick. 143, it was held, that a lot of wild land, which had been used by the husband in connexion with his house and cultivated land, to supply wood for buildings, fences and fuel, might be properly assigned to a widow as part of her dower, to enable her to take fuel and timber for repairs. It was also suggested, that a widow would have no right to take firebote, &c. from lands of her deceased husband, unless the land, from which it is taken, were included in those assigned as her dower.
A distinction was urged in the argument, between woodlands, kept by the owners to raise wood for sale, for purposes of profit, and wild lands, and that it would be hard to deprive a widow of her dower in such lands, of which the raising of wood for sale may be considered as the most profitable use. But we think the answer results from the legal principles on which the foregoing cases are settled. Such estate yields no annual profit. The owner may make a profit of the land, but it is in the exercise of the rights of a tenant in fee, which a tenant for life, by law, does not enjoy, that of felling growing trees. The result we think is, that a widow is not to be endowed of a lot of growing wood and timber, although kept purposely to raise wood and timber as objects of profit, provided that it is not assigned to her as part of her dower, in connexion with buildings or cultivated lands. But when woodland is so connected and used, it may be included in the assignment of dower, to be used and enjoyed by the widow, or those holding under her.
*252But the right of the widow thus acquired is that of reasonable estovers, under which may be included firebote or the ne cessary fuel for the supply of the dower estate. But this right of reasonable estovers is confined strictly to wood and timber sufficient for the supply of the estate, and it must be actually applied, used and consumed upon the estate, or for purposes connected with its proper use, occupation and enjoyment. It has been recently decided, that cutting growing trees, to be exchanged for other wood to be used as fuel or timber on the estate, was not within the right of a tenant in dower, but in law was deemed waste : Padelford v. Padelford, 7 Pick. 152.
A fortiori, the cutting of wood for sale, the proceeds of which are not to be used or appropriated upon the estate or in connexion with it, is not admissible, under the limited right of taking reasonable estovers.
If the plaintiff, as lessee of the tenant in dower, had no right to cut the growing wood, the defendant, as having the next estate of inheritance, had a right to take the wood when severed. Blaker v. Anscombe, 4 Bos. and Pul. 25.

Plaintiff nonsuit.