MEANING OF STUMPAGE, LUMBER, ETC 19 



The words "refuse wood" in a statute were construed to 

 include "shingle sawdust" and "shingle shavings," but 

 not the fuel which had been prepared from trees cut for 

 fuel, 1 and "firewood" as used in a statute regulating the 

 measurement of wood for sale was held not to include 

 chips and trimmings of lumber which were sold by the load 

 instead of by the cord. - It has been held that an allow- 

 ance for roads was not included in a devise of woodland, :! 

 and woodland has been judicially distinguished from 

 prairie land. 4 "Woodleave" has been defined as a license 

 to take wood. "' 



It has been held that contracts for the cutting of dead 

 timber include trees which have been so badly injured that 

 a prudent owner would cut them to prevent further loss. 6 



A sawlog has been defined as a part of the trunk of a 

 tree stripped of its branches and cut into suitable lengths 

 for the manufacture of lumber. 7 It has been held that a 

 sale of logs upon the basis of a scale did not include a mast 

 upon the same scale bill. 8 



Lumber has been defined by the courts as timber sawed 

 or split for use in building. 9 Some courts have held that 

 shingles are lumber 10 , and others that they are not. 11 

 Pieces of cedar four feet long, rived for shingle spurpoes, 

 have been held subject to a lien for the cutting and hauling 

 of lumber. 12 In some states lumber is defined very com- 



1. State v. Howard, 72 Me. 459, 4(15. 



2. Duren v. (iaf?e. 72 Me. IIS. 



3. Blaine v. Chambers, 1 Serf?. & K. (Pa.) I till. 



4. Buxtun v. St. Louis, etc. K. Co. f>K Mo. 55. 



5. Osborne v. O'Reilly. 12 V .1. Kq. 4(17, 9 Atl. 20H. 



6. I'. S. v. Boimess, 125 Fed. Kep. 4S5; I'. S. v. Pine River Logging X Impr. Co., 



SO Fed. 907, 1)15. 



7. Hardwood Co. v. R. R. Co.. (1 Ala. App. (i2'., <'>('> So. 9 lit. Slate v. Addition, 



121 X. C. 53S, 27 S. K. 9SS. Cf. in re Ooseli, 121 Fed. (104. Cinrhmati Kte. 



R. Co. v. Dickey, 30 Ohio 1(1 (Sticks refers to square timber rather than logs.: 

 S. H.iynes v. 1 1 ay ward, 40 Me. 145. 

 9. Craze, v. Land Co., 155 Ala. 4:51, 1(1 So. 179: Ward v. Kadel. 3S Ark. 174, ISO; 



McKinnoy v. Matthews, l(i(i X. C. 57(1. 5SO. S2 S. K. 103(1: Dutch v. Anderson, 



75 Ind, 35; Williams v. Stevens Point Lbr. Co.. 72 \Vis. 4S7, 40 X. W. 154; 



Allen v. Red ward, 10 Hawaii 159: Townsend v. Ha 

 Out. L. 521, 27 Out. L. 479. 2(1 Out. L. 291. 4 I )< 

 1105. 21 Out. \V. R. <)(il. 



10. (iross v. Kiden. 5:5 \Vis. 543, 1 1 X. W. 9: Lbr. C >. v. R< 



11. Dexter Horton & Co. v. Sparkman. 2 Wash. 1(15. 25 I 



12. Sands v. Sands, 74 Me. 239. Cf. Bondur v. LeHour 



ik. 49 Can. S. Ct. 394. 2S 

 in. L. R. 91. 3 Out. W. X. 



ladlock v. 



Shumway. 11 Wash. 090; Hurlburt v. Lake Shore R.. 2 Int. St. Com. 122. 



