INTERPRETATION OF AGREEMENTS 41 



shingles 1 and to tap trees for the making of turpentine.' 



46. The Express or Implied Terms of the Convey- 

 ance or Demise, will be Given Effect. In fact in the 

 United States, the same as in England, any cutting which 

 is contrary to good husbandry and causes any permanent 

 injury to the freehold or inheritance is waste provided the 

 tenant has no special right or license to cut, 3 and the 

 general rule against the cutting of an unnecessary amount 

 for fuel, 4 or repairs and improvements 5 will be more 

 strictly enforced where the terms of a lease recite that no 

 waste is to be committed. 6 Where a lease forbade any 

 cutting except for the lessee's use or for the improvement 

 of the premises the court left to the jury the question 

 whether the tapping of trees for sugar making purposes 

 had an effect of shortening the lives of the trees with in- 

 structions to hold the lessee guilty of waste if they found 

 that injury to the trees had resulted from the tapping; 7 

 and where a farm was leased for dairy purposes with a 

 covenant against waste the clearing of woodland was held 

 waste per se as a matter of law. 8 A lease giving a right 



1. Ballentine v. Poyue, 2 Hayne (3 N. Car.) 110. 



2. Can- v. Carr, 4 Dev. & B. L. (20 N. Ca..) 179; But see Parkins v. Cox. 2 Hayne 



(3 N. Oar. > 339. 



3. Ala. Moses v. Johnson, 88 Ala, 517, 7 So. 146, 16 Am. St. Rep. 58; Special Right, 



McDaniel v. CalJan, 75 Ala. 329. 



Del. Waples v. Waples. 2 Hair. 2S1; Fleming v. Collins, 2 Del. Ch. 230. 



Ga. Powell v. Cheshire, 70 Ga. 357, 48 Am. Rep. 572. 



Ind. Robertson v. Meadors, 73 Ind. 43. 



Ky. McCracken v. McCracken, 6 T. B. Mon. 342. 



Mich. Webster v. Peet, 97 Mich. 326, 56 N. W. 558. 



Minn. Butman v. James, 34 Minn. 547, 27 N. W. 66. 



Mo. Proffitt v. Henderson, 29 Mo. 325. 



N. Y. Van Deusen v. Young, 29 N. Y. 9; McGregor v. Brown, 10 N. Y. 114; 

 Elwell v. Burnside, 44 Barb. 447; Hawley v. Clowes, 2 Johns. Ch. 122; 

 McCay v. Wait, 51 Barb. 225; Jackson v. Brownson, 7 Johns. 227, 5 Am. 

 Dec. 258; Solden v. Mann, 2 N. Y, Leg. Obs. 328. 



N. C. King v. Miller, 99 N. C. 583, 6 S. E. 660; Parkins v. Cox, 3 N. C. 339. 



Pa. Smith's Appeal, 69 Pa. St. 474. 



S. C. Smith v. Poyas, 2 Desauss. Eq. 65. 



Eng. Hale v. Thomas, 7 Ves. Jr. 586. 6 Rev. Rep. 195, 32 Eng. Reprint 237; Tur- 

 ner v. Wright, 2 Fisher & J. 234 (1860.) 



4. Zimmerman v. Shreeve, 59 Md. 357; Phillips v. Allen, 89 Mass. (7 Allen) 115; 



Smith v. Jewett, 40 N. H. 530. 



5. People v. Davidson, 4 Barb. (N. Y.) 109; Mooers v. Wait, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 104, 



20 Am. Dec. 667; Ballentine v. Poyner, 3 N. C. 110; See also Holden v. Clarke, 

 7 Gray (Mass.) 9, 66 Am. Dec. 450. 



6. Livingston v. Reynolds, 2 Hill (N. Y.) 157, 26 Wend. (N. Y.) 115; McGregor v. 



Brown, 10 N. Y. 114; Sheriden v. McMuUen, 12 Oreg. 150. 6 Pac. 497. 



7. Campbell v. Shields, 44 U. C. Q. B. 449. 



8. McGregor v. Brown, 10 N. Y. 114. 



