GENERAL PRINCIPLES 35 



tenant may, therefore, cut the inferior species and inferior 

 individuals of the timber species provided the removal of 

 timber is not of such e.xtent or done in such manner as to 

 destroy the character of the land as woodland. : Such 

 wood is considered somewhat like an ordinary crop on the 

 land, and is called "underwood" in some English authori- 

 ties. The cutting of dead trees, or "dotards,'' by a tenant 

 for the clearing of land, the giving of better opportunity 

 for growth to the green timber, or simply for use is not 

 waste; 2 and in an American case, involving a question of 

 w r aste, the court held that evidence tending to show that 

 the trees cut and sold were in a dying condition was properly 

 admissible. 3 In England and, generally at least, in the 

 United States trees capable of forming the subject matter 

 of waste belong to the owner of the inheritance after sever- 

 ance whether severed by act of the tenant, 4 of a third 

 party, :> or by the elements G and the tenant will be guilty 

 of waste if he appropriate timber trees blown down by s i orm. : 

 However, trees which the tenant may lawfully cut. without 

 waste, belong to the tenant, 8 and he is entitled tj the 

 proceeds, whether they have been severed by himself, 9 

 by the lessor, 10 by a third party, u or by the elements, 12 

 and the tenant is not guiltv of waste Jn removing such 



1. Hogan v. Hogan, 102 Mich. 041, 01 X. \V. 73. 



See Landlord and Tenant, Tiffany. Kd. 1010. p. 711, Sec. l()ii. 



2. Co. Litt. 53a; Herlakenden's Case, 4 Coke (12: (".age v. Smith. 2 Rolle Abr. S17; 



Cowley v. Wellesley, L. R. 1 Kq. 05<i, 3 Beav. 035, 14 L. T. Rep. X. S. 425. 14- 

 Wkly. Rep. 52S. 55 Eng. Reprint 101:5; IVrrot v. Perrot. 3 Atk. !)4, 2(i Eng. Re- 

 l>rint X57: Sawyer v. Hoskinson, 110 Pa. 47:{, 1 Atl. 30S; Keeler v. Eastman, 11 

 Vt. 293; Kins,' v. Miller. 99 N. C. 5x3. ti S. K. (i(i(): \\aples v. Waples, 2 Harr. 

 'Del.) 2S; Drown v. Smith, 52 Me. Ill: Kent v. Hentley, 3 Ohio Dee. 173; 

 Hought on v. Cooper, (i li. Mon (Kv.) 2S1. 



3. Morris v. Knight. 14 I'a. Super. Ct. 324. 



4. Bulkley v. Dolbeare. 7 Conn. 2:52: White v. Cutler, 34 Mass. ( 17 Pick.) 24S, 2S 



Am. Dec. 290: Johnson v. Johnson. IS N. II. 594: Williamson v. Jones, 43 W. 

 Va. 502, 27 S. K. 41 r Mill v. Hurgess, 37 S. C. 004, 15 S. K. 903: Richardson 

 v. York, 14 Me. 21 (i; Lester v. Young. 14 K. I. 579. 



5. Lane v. Thompson, 43 X. II. 320; See Porch v. Fries, is X. J. K<|. 201. 

 (i. Stonebreaker v. ZollickonYr, 52 Md. 154, 3G Am. Rep. 304. 



7. Ward v. Andrews, 2 Chit. (53(5, IS E. C. L. 435; Mooers v. Wait, 3 Wend. v-V Y.) 



104; Cf. Shult v. Barker. 12 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 272. 

 Wind-thrown trees pass with land as realty; Leidy v. Procter, i)7 Pa. St. 480; Soo- 



also Am. & Eng. Ency. Law, Vol. 30, p. 305. Xote 2. 

 S. Mooers v. Wait. 3 "VVend. (X*. Y.) 104; Hastings v. Crunckleton, 3 Yeates (Pa.) 



251: Crockett v. Crockett, 2 Ohio St. ISO; Lewis v. Godson, 15 Out. 252. 

 9. Promt v. Henderson, 29 Mo. 325; Clement v. Wheeler, 25 X. H. 3(11 : Crockett V- 



Crockett, supra: Keeler v. Eastman, 11 Yt. 293. 



10. Am. & Eng. Ency, Law, Vol. 30, p. 304. 



11. Ibid.; Land & Ten., Tiffany. Ed. 1910. p. 737. 



12. Ibid. 



