18 TREES AND TIMBER AS PROPERTY 



embrace lath, 1 shingles, 2 fence rails, 3 railroad ties 4 or 

 pulpwood; 5 that "saw timber" did not include telegraph 

 poles; 6 and that "lumber and timber," as used in a statute 

 giving a lien for work in manufacturing the same did not 

 include slabs. 7 However, a Maine statute regulating 

 the driving of "timber" in streams has been held to include 

 pulpwood. 8 



25. The Legal Meaning of the words Stump- 

 age," "Lumber," "Firewood," etc. The word "stump- 

 age" as generally used denotes the value of the timber 

 standing in the tree, 9 but the term has sometimes, im- 

 properly, been used to mean the value of the trees after 

 they were cut down. 10 The word "wood" may not only 

 mean a forest, " or timber which has been cut down, 12 

 but it may include lumber and bark. 13 Although the 

 word "timber" has been given the restricted meaning of 

 material fit for building and allied purposes, 14 it has been 

 held that "standing wood" includes trees suitable for tim- 

 ber as well as those fit only for fuel. 15 However, where 

 the expression ''wood and Underwoods" was used in a lease 

 following the phrase "timber and other trees," it was held 

 to denote only such trees as were not fit for timber. 16 



1. Babka v. Eldred, 47 Wis. 189, 2 N. W. 559. 



2. Battis v. Hamlin, 22 Wis. 669. 



3. McCauley v. State, 43 Tex. 374. But see Hunter v. Hunter, 17 Barb. (X. Y.) 25. 



4. Johnson v. Truitt. 122 Ga. 327, 50 S. E. 135; Butler v. McPherson, 95 Miss. 635. 



49 So. 257. Hubbard v. Burton, 75 Mo. 65. But ee Kollock V. Parcher, 52 

 Wis. 393, 9 X. W. 67. 



5. Kaul v. Weed, 203 Pa. St. 586, 53 Atl. 489; 



6. Elliott v. Bloyd. 40 Ore. 326, 67 Pac. 202. Cf. Kelly v. Robb, 58 Tex. 377. 



7. Engi v. Hardell, 123 Wis. 407, 100 N. W. 1046. 



8. Bearce v. Dudley, 88 Me. 410, 34 Atl. 260. See Slight v. Frix, 165 Ala. 230, 51 



So. 601 ("Lumber" in pleading not fatal, "timber" Stat.) 



9. Ciapusci v. Clark, 12 Calif. App. 44, 106 Pac. 436; Ray v. Schmidt & Co., 7 Ga. 



App. 380, 66 S. E. 1035; Stanley v. Livingston, 9 Ga. App. 523, 71 S. E. 878; 

 Gordon v. Grand Rapids Etc. R. Co., 103 Mich. 379, 61 N. \V. 549; Xitz v. 

 Bolton, 71 Mich. 388, 39 N. W. 15; Skeels v. Starrett, 57 Mich. 350, 24 N. W. 

 98; U. S. v. Mills, 9 Fed. 684, 687; Baker v. Whiting, 2 Fed. Cas. Xo. 787, 3 

 Summ. 475, 484. 



10. Blood v. Drummond, 67 Me. 476; Ayres v. Hubbard, 71 Mich. 594, 40 X. W. 



10: Single v. Schneider, 30 Wis. 570, 574. 



11. State v. Howard, 72 Me. 459. 



12. Darling v. Clement, 69 Vt. 292, 37 Atl. 779. 



13. Hutchinson v. Ford. 62 Vt. 97, 18 Atl. 1044. 



14. Gulf Yellow Pine Lbr. Co. v. Monk, 159 Ala. 318, 49 So. 248. Cf. Webb. v. 



Xational Fire Ins. Co. 2 Sandf. (X. Y.) 497, 504. Cf. U. S. v. Schuler, 27 



Fed. Cas. Xo. 16234, 6 McLean, 28, 37. 

 ] 5. Strout v. Harper, 72 Me. 270. 

 16 Leigh v. Heald, 1 B. & Ad. 622. 20 E. C. L. 624. 



