24 TREES AND TIMBER AS PROPERTY 



standing on the land of another. 1 In many States there 

 are statutes regulating the taxation of standing timber that 

 is owned separately from the land. 2 



Ordinarily, when land is sold because of the non-pay- 

 ment of taxes, the former owner of the land is entitled to 

 the possession and enjoyment of the land until the period 

 allowed for redemption has expired. Accordingly if the 

 purchaser at the tax sale enters during such period without 

 the consent of the owner and cuts timber, he is liable for 

 trespass. 3 However, under some statutes the purchaser 

 at the tax sale is entitled to possession until the property 

 is redeemed, and where the purchaser has actual possession 

 no action for trespass will lie in favor of the owner, 4 and 

 it has been held that a redemption, or an offer to redeem, 

 must be shown to justify an injunction restraining the tax 

 purchaser from cutting. 5 



And although a court of equity may restrain an owner 

 from the cutting of timber to such an extent as to injure 

 the lien of the one who has purchased at a tax sale, a 

 any cutting which does not involve a stripping of the 

 land may be done by the owner during the redemption 

 period, and the purchaser cannot maintain replevin for 

 timber thus removed. 7 



When the purchaser obtains a deed after the expiration 

 of the period for redemption, he obtains title not only to 

 timber then standing, but also to that cut subsequent to 



1. Williams v. Triche. 107 La. 92, 31 So. 926; Globe Lbr. Co. v. Lockett, 106 La. 



414, 30 So. 902; Fox v. Pearl River Lbr. Co. 80 Miss. 1, 31 So. 583. 



2. Ark. Castle's Suppl. of 1911 to Kirby's Digest of 1904, Sec. 6905 (Act Apr. 7 



1905, S. L. No. 146, p. 36l); See also sec. 6905b-6905e (Act May 6, 



1905, S. L. No. 303, p. 738. Tax Sales). 



Va. Suppl. of 1910 to Pollard Code of 1904, p. 82, Sec. 470. 

 Wash. Code & Stat. 1910, Rem. & Bal. Sec. 9095-96. 

 W.Va. Code 1906, Sec. 723; Code 1913 Sec. 923. 



3. Sullivan v. Davis, 29 Kan. 28; Brewer v. Ireland, 67 N. J. Law 31, 50 Atl. 437; 



Millard v. Breckwoldt, 100 N. Y. App. Div. 44, 90 N. Y. Suppl. 890; Shale- 

 miller v. McCarty, 55 Pa. St. 186; Wing v. Hall, 47 Vt. 182; Paine v. Libby, 21 

 Wis. 425. 



4. Cromelin v. Brink, 29 Pa. St. 522. 



6. Wright v. King, 18 Wis. 45. See also Busch v. Nester, 62 Mich, 381, 28 N. W. 

 911; Eureka Lumber Co. v. Terrell (Miss. 1909), 48 So. 628; 45 Cent. Dig. tit. 

 Taxation, Sec. 1462. 



6. Millard v. Breckwoldt, 100 N. Y. App. Div. 44, 90 N. Y. Suppl. 890. 



7. Woodland Oil Co. v. Shoup, 107 Pa. St. 293; Shalemiller v. McCarty, 55 Pa. St. 



186; Gaults Appeal, 33 Pa. St. 94; Woodland Oil Co. v. Lawrence, 1 Pennyp. 



(Pa.) 480: Lightner v. Mooney, 10 Watts (Pa.) 407: Lacy v. Johnson, 58 Wis. 

 414, 17 N. W. 246; Smith v. Sherry. 54 Wis. 114, 11 N. W. 465. But see Gall- 

 aher v. Head, 108 Iowa 588, 79 N.W. 387, and McKean v. Gammon, 33 Me. 187. 



