36 



trees when blown down by a storm. 1 The parts of wi nd- 

 thrown timber that are fit only for wood belong to the 

 tenant. 2 Similarly, when a tenant holds without impea ch- 

 ment for waste trees which have been cut belong to the 

 tenant by whomever severed. 



42. Limitations upon the Amount of Timber A 

 Tenant May Cut. The amount of wood and timber which 

 can be cut by any tenant without waste is only such as is 

 reasonably necessary to the enjoyment of the estate which 

 he holds. 3 He is entitled to take that which is suitable 

 for the uses permitted and may, ordinarily, take that 

 which is conveniently situated. 4 The taking of a reason- 

 able amount for fuel for the use of servants living on the 

 land, either in the same house or in another, has been per- 

 mitted. 5 However, the allowance for firewood for ser- 

 vants or employees will not be liberally extended and it 

 has been held that on a farm of one hundred and sixty-five 

 acres a tenant for life was not entitled to firewood for the 

 dwelling of a laborer on the premises in addition to that 

 needed for the principal dwelling. 6 The tenant cannot 

 take growing timber trees for firewood when there is a 

 sufficient quantity of dead timber or inferior trees avail- 

 able. 7 



The right to cut timber for repairs has been held to exist 

 even where the tenant had agreed to make repairs at his 

 own expense, 8 and the right has been considered so fun- 

 damental that a tenant for life could cut timber for the 

 construction of a new building in place of one that had be- 

 come dilapidated, or ruinous. 9 Yet, he cannot take tim- 



1. Houghton v. Cooper, 6 B. Mon. (Ky.) 281; Shult v. Barker, 12 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 



272; See Am. & Eng. Ency. Law, 2 Ed., Vol. 30, p. 242. 



2. Stonebreaker v. Zollickoffer, 52 Md. 154, 36 Am. Rep. 364. 



3. Zimmerman v. Shreeve, 59 Md. 357; Miles v. Miles, 32 N. H. 147, 64 Am. Dec. 



362; Smith v. Jewett, 40 N. H. 530; Simmons v. Norton, 7 Bing. 640; Doe v. 

 Wilson, 11 East. 56; Pardoe v. Pardoe, 82 L. T. Rep. N. S. 547; Padelford v. 

 Padelford. 24 Mass. (7 Pick.) 152; Phillips v. Allen. 89 Mass. (7 Allen) 115; 

 Johnson v. Johnson, 18 N. H. 594; Anderson v. Cowan, 125 Iowa 259, 101 N. W. 

 92, 68 L. R. A. 641, 106 Am. St. Rep. 303. 



4. Webster v. Webster, 33 N. H. 18, 66 Am. Dec. 705; Rutherford v. Aiken, 2 Thompa' 



& C. (N. Y.) 281, (3 Thomps. & C., p. 60.) 



5. Smith v. Jewett, 40 N. H. 530; Gardiner v. Derring, 1 Paige (N. Y.) 573. 



6. Sarles v. Sarles, 3 Sandf . Ch. (N. Y.) 604. 



7. Hogan v. Hogan, 102 Mich, 641, 61 N. W. 73. 



8. Harder v. Harder, 26 Barb. (N. Y.) 409; See Coke Litt. 54 b. 



9. Sarles v. Sarles, 3 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 601. 



