WASTE IN ENGLAND 33 



able for building purposes, or ornamental or protective uses, 

 the right of the tenant to estovers will be restricted to such 

 extent as a prudent management of the estate shall require. 1 



39. Waste in England. Both the general policy of 

 the English common law to preserve the established char- 

 acter of land while in the possession of others than those 

 holding the fee simple title and the relative scarcity in 

 England of forests containing trees suitable for construction 

 purposes served to caude English courts to show the great- 

 est consideration to property rights in growing trees, and 

 the cutting of certain kinds or classes of trees, known as 

 "timber trees," by a tenant was early determined to be 

 waste against which summary relief would be given. The 

 word "timber" was used technically in English law to de- 

 note green trees of an age of twenty years, or by the cus- 

 tom of the place of even a greater age, such as oak, ash, 

 elm and other trees, the wood of which was adapted to 

 constructional uses. 2 The determination of whether cer- 

 tain species should be considered timber trees in contempla- 

 tion of law depended upon the custom of the locality where 

 the question of waste arose. 3 In England it is waste to 

 cut any timber tree, or to permit it to be cut, 4 except upon 

 land where it has been the custom to fell suitable wood at 

 intervals as a part of the regular profits. 5 The exception 

 has been announced in the consideration of cases involving 



1. 7 Bac. Abr. 252; Simmons v. Norton, 7 Bing. 640, 20 E. C. L. 270; Arch Deacon 



v. Jennor, Oro. Eliz. 604; Hogan v. Hogan, 102 Mich. 641; Rutherford v. Aiken, 

 3 Thomp. & C. (N. Y.) 60; Gorges v. Stanfleld, Cro. Eliz. 593. (Present repairs 

 only.) 



2. Co. Litt. 53a; Comyn's Dig. "waste," D; 5; 2 Roll. 28 1. 10; 3 Danes Abr. 218, 



233; Tudor's Lead. Gas. 65, Ambrey v. Fisher, 10 East 446; Chandos v. Talbot, 

 2 P. Wms. 606; Honywood v. Honywood, L. R. 18 Eq. 306. 43 L. J. Ch. 652, 30 

 L. T. Rep. N. S. 671, 22 Wkly, Rep. 749; Dunn v. Bryan, Ir. R. 7 Eq. 143; Dash- 

 wood v. Magniac (1891) 3 Ch. 306; Dickenson v. Jones, 36 Ga. 97; Kidd v. Den- 

 nison, 6 Barb. (N. Y.) 9; Jackson v. Brownson, 7 Johns (N. Y.) 227, 5 Am. Dec. 

 258. See Landlord & Tenant, Tiffany, St. Paul 1910, p. 711, Sec. 109. 



3. Honywood v. Honywood, L. R. 18 Eq. 306, 43 L. J. Ch. 652, 30 L. T. Rep, N. S. 



671. 22 Wkly, Rep. 749; Cook v. Cook, Cro. Car. 531. 79 Eng. Reprint 1059; 

 Cumberland's Case, Moore K. B. 812, 72 Eng. Reprint 922; Chandos v, Talbot. 

 2 P. Wms. 606, 24 Eng. Reprint 877; Coke Litt. 53a: Bewes, Waste 98; Guffly 

 v. Pindar, Hob. 219; Bullen v. Denning, 5 B. & C. 842. 



4. See Bond v. Lockwood, 3 111. 212; McGregor v. Brown, 10 N. Y. 114: Ward v. 



Sheppard, 3 N. C. 283, 2 Am. Dec. 625; Glass v. Glass, 6 Pa. Co. Ct. 408: Brown 

 v. O'Brien, 4 Pa. L. J. 454; Profltt v. Henderson. 29 Me. 325; Keeler v. Eastman, 

 11 Vt. 293. 



5. Perrot v. Perrot, 3 Atk. 94; Perrand v. Wilson. 4 Hare 344; Dashwood V Magniac 



(1891) 3 Ch. 306. 



