RIGHT TO USE TIMBER LIMITED 37 



ber for repairs made necessary by his own fault, l nor to 

 rebuild a structure destroyed by an act of God. 2 Timber 

 cannot be used for the making of repairs to an extent greater 

 than is necessary. 3 If there are mines upon the premises 

 which the tenant is entitled to work he may, in the absence 

 of special restrictions, take the timber necessary for mining 

 operations, at least to the extent to which timber has pre- 

 viously been taken from the premises for such purposes. 4 

 A life tenant has been permitted to use wood in the opera- 

 tion of salt works 5 upon the premises and on principle 

 the right should be extended to other industries which have 

 customarily been conducted upon the premises or which 

 may reasonably be considered one of the privileges incident 

 to the enjoyment of the possession of the premises. 6 



43. The Relationship Between the Possession of 

 Land and Use of Timber Must be Intimate. A 



tenant cannot take wood or timber for use at other 

 times ' or upon other premises, 8 or for an industrial 

 enterprise which is conducted upon the same premises 

 but which bears no intimate relation to the land, or 

 its possession, and for which no special provision was 

 made in the demise or other instrument under author- 

 ity of which the premises are held, '' and it has been held 

 that the cutting of wood by a life tenant for the burning 

 of brick which were to be sold constituted waste. 1(l In 

 the absence of express stipulations granting him the privi- 

 lege American courts generally hold that a tenant for life 



1. Co. Litt. 53b. 



2. Miller v. Shields. 55 Ind. 71. 



3. Sarlos v. Sarles, ;! Sandf. Cli. (X. V.) (>()1 ; Gorges v. Stanfield, fro. Eli/,. 593. 



4. Noel v. Noel, 1!) Pa. St. 323. 



5. Findliiy v. Smith, Munf. (Va.) 13-1. IS Am. Dec. 733. 



See Bond v. Godsey, 99 Va. 504, .'59 S. K. 21t>, where in estimating commuted 

 value of estate in curtosy court declined to exclude share in value of standing 

 timber, and McOaulay v. Dismal Swamp Land Co. 2 Hob. (Va.) 507. giving 

 dower in profits of timber cutting . 

 f>. Den v. Kinney. 5 X. .]. L. 03-1; Wilson v. Smith, 5 Yerg. (Tenn.l 379. 



7. Morohoii.se v. C'otheal. 22 X. .1. L. 521; Ividcl v. Dennison. ti Barb. (X. Y.i <V 



8. Armstrong v. Wilson. 00 III. 22(i. 



9. McCracken v. McOraokon, ti T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 342. 

 10. Livingston v. Reynolds. 2(3 Wend. (X. Y.) 115. 



