30 LIABILITY OF TENANT AS TO WASTE 



fied by the Statute of Westminster II has been held appli- 

 cable and co-tenants have been held liable for waste without 

 a statutory provision. 1 



Rather more liberty than is enjoyed by life tenants ap- 

 pears to have been given to tenants in common and joint 

 tenants so long as the action of the tenant could be con- 

 sidered consistent with a reasonable enjoyment of the es- 

 tate, but any action by such a tenant that is not necessary 

 to a reasonable enjoyment of the estate which he holds 

 will be restrained in accordance with the general principles 

 of waste applicable to other forms of tenancy. Possibly 

 it may be said that the right of use is somewhat broader, 

 but there is no special liberty to go beyond the limitations 

 of such use as is considered reasonable. 



36. The Avoidance of Liability for Waste. Through 

 the use of proper words, 2 or by other evidence of inten- 

 tion, in the creation of an estate a tenant of any class may 

 hold "without impeachment for waste." Against one hold- 

 ing under such a tenancy an action at law cannot be brought 

 to prevent the doing of acts which would ordinarily consti- 

 tute waste, nor can the tenant be compelled to account for 

 an injury done to the inheritance. 3 However, even where 



(Foot note 10 concluded from preceding page) 



Mass. Jenkins v. Wood, 145 Mass, 494; Byam v. Biokford. 140 Mass. 31. 

 Mich. Benedict v. Torrent, 83 Mich. 181, 21 Am. Dec. 589. 

 Minn. Shepard v. Pettit, 30 Mum. 119. 



Mo. Childs v. Kansas City, Etc. R. Co. (Mo. 1891) 17 S. W. Rep. 954. 

 N. Y. Cosgriff v. Dewey, 164 N. Y. 1; Aff. 21 N. Y. App. Div. 129; Elwell v. 



Burnside, 44 Barb. 447. 



N. C. Morrison v. Morrison, 122 N. C. 598; Hinson v. Hinson. 120 N. C. 4(W; 

 Smith v. Sharpe, Busb. L. (44 N. C.) 91, 57 Am. Dec. 574; See Darden 

 v. Cowper, 7 Jones L. (52 N. C.) 210, 75 Am. Dec. 461. 

 S. C. Hancock v. Day, McMull, Eq. (S. C.) 69, 36 Am. Dec. 293; Johnson v. 



Johnson, 2 Hill Eq. (S. C.) 277, 29 Am. Dec. 72. 



W. Va.Cecil v. Clark, 47 W. Va. 4O2; Williamson v. Jones, 43 W. Va. 562. 

 For destruction of trees, a tenant has an action on the case in the nature of waste, 

 against his co-tenant but never an action of trespass quare clausum fregit. 

 Anders v. Meredith, 4 Dev. & B. L. (20 N. C.) 199, 34 Am. Dec. 376. Cf. 

 Smith v. Sharp, 44 N. C. 91, 57 Am. Dec. 574. 



Childs v. Kansas City Et. R. Co. 117 Mo. 414, 17 S. W. 954, held that where one 

 tenant occupies land to exclusion of co-tenant, he is liable for waste irrespective 

 of statute such as 4th and 5th Anne, but Prescott v. Xevers, 4 Mason (U. S.) 

 326, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,390, holds contrary. 



1. Dodge v. Davis, 85 lo. 77; Johnson v. Johnson, 2 Hill Eq. 277, 29 Am. Dec. 72; 



Hancock v. Day, McMull. Eq. (S. C.) 69, 36 Am. Dec. 293; Thompson v. 

 Bostwick, McMull. Eq. (S. C.) 75. 



2. Belt v. Simkins, 113 Ga. 894, 39 S. E. 490; Chapman v. Epperson Circled Head- 



ing Co., 101 111. App. 161; Stevens v. Rose, 69 Mich. 259, 37 X. W. 205: Web- 

 ster v. Webster, 33 N. H. 18, 66 Am. Dec. 705; McDaniel v. Callan. 75 Ala. 329. 



3. 40 Cyc. 500. 



