42 LEGAL WASTE OF TIMBER 



to cut from one part of the land leased will not be constru ' I 

 so as to permit cutting from another part. l An unwar- 

 ranted cutting will not be considered waste if it causes only 

 a slight or temporary injury. 2 



47. Waste by Tenants in Common. A tenant in 

 common is given great liberty not only in the matter of 

 taking estovers from the land held in common but even 

 in the cutting of timber for sale. Where the extent of the 

 cutting and the attendant circumstances are not such as 

 to present evidence of an ouster of the co-tenants, cutting 

 by a tenant in common is considered an incident to the 

 enjoyment of the estate to which he is entitled 3 and 

 will not beheld to constitute an adverse possession as against 

 his co-tenant. 4 Only when the cutting clearly causes a 

 substantial injury to the inheritance to the manifest disad- 

 vantage of his co-tenants will he be held chargeable 

 with, the value of the timber cut during his occupation of 

 the land. 5 If the cutting is unreasonable, in view of all 

 the circumstances, the co-tenants may require an account- 

 ing for timber sold, 6 but where a lifeowner of common 

 land cut and used a few hundred dollars worth of timber 



1. Ladd v. Shattuck, 90 Ala. 134, 7 So. 764; Jones v. Gammon, 123 Ga. 47, 50 S. E. 



982. 



2. Sheppard v. Sheppard, 2 Hayw. (3 X. C.) 382; Bandlow v. Thieme, 53 Wis. 57; 



Davenport v. Magoon, 13 Oreg. 3, 57 Am. Rep. 1. 



3. Whiting v. Dewey, 15 Pick. (Mass.) 428: Shumway v. Holbrook, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 



114, 11 Am. Dec. 153; Strong v. Richardson, 19 Vt. 194; Johnson v. Conant. 

 64 N. H. 109, 7 Atl. 116; Hihn v. Peck, 18 Cal. 640; Partureau v. Wilbert 44 

 La. Ann. 355; Darden v. Cowper, 7 Jones L. (52 N. C.) 210, 75 Am. Dec. 461; 

 Dodd v. Watson, 4 Jones Eq. (57 N. C.) 48, 72 Am. Dec. 577; See also Alford 

 v. Bradeen, 1 Nev. 228. Eng. Martyn v. Knowllys, 8 T. R. 145. 1Q1 Eng. 

 Reprint 1313; Arthur v. Lamb, 2 Drew & Sm. 428. 



4. McQuiddy v. Ware, 67 Mo. 74; Griffles v. Griffles, 8 L. T. Rep. N. S. 758, 11 Wkly. 



Rep. 943. 



5. Nevels v. Kentucky Lumber Co., 108 Ky. 550, 56 S. W. 969, 22 Ky L. Rep. 247, 



99 Am. St. Rep. 388, 49 L. R. A. 416; Strong v. Richardson, 19 Vt. 194; Munsie 

 v. Lindsay, 10 Ont. Pr. 173; Rice v. George, 20 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 221: Griffin v. 

 Patterson, 45 U. C. Q. B. 536. 591; But see Gillum v. St. Louis, etc. R. Co., 

 5 Tex. Civ. App. 338, 23 S. W. 717; Thompson v. Bostwick, McMull. Eq. 

 (S. C.) 85; Hancock v. Day, McMull. Eq. 69. 36 Am. Dec. 293. 



6. Hodges v. Heal, 80 Me. 281, 14 Atl. 11, 6 Am. St. Rep. 199; Kimbal v. Sumner, 



62 Me. 305; Bradley v. Boynton, 22 Me. 287, 39 Am. Dec. 582; Mee v. Benedict, 

 98 Mich. 260, 57 N. W. 175, 39 Am. St. Rep. 543, 22 L. R. A. 641 ; Gillum v. 

 St. Louis, etc. R. Co.. 4 Tex. Civ. App. 622, 23 S. W. 716; See also. Hole v. 

 Thomas, 7 Ves. Jr. 589; Maxwell v. Maxwell, 31 Me. 184, 50 Am. Dec. 657; 

 Hawley v. Clowes, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 122; Elwell v. Burnside, 44 Barb. (N. Y.) 

 447; Bradley v. Reed, 2 Pittsb. (Pa.) 519; Johnson v. Johnson, 2 Hill Eq. (S. C.) 

 277, 29 Am. Dec. 72; Hancock v. Day, McMull. Eq. (S. C.) 69, 36 Am. Dec. 293; 

 McDodrill v. Pardee, etc. Lbr. Co., 40 W. Va. 564; Dodge v. Davis, 85 Iowa 77; 

 State v. Judge, 52 La. Ann. 103; Clow v. Plummer, 85 Mich. 550; Blake v. 

 Milliken, 14 N. H. 213. 



