CLEARING LAND FOR CULTIVATION 43 



for manufacture in a sawmill owned by the tenants in com- 

 mon, and yet left an abundance of timber for all purposes, 

 he was held not chargeable with the value of the timber 

 cut. 1 However, this freedom of use does not extend to 

 unoccupied and unimproved land held in common, and 

 not only will statutes, making cutting timber from such 

 lands waste, be strictly enforced,- but such cutting has 

 been held waste under the common law when shown to 

 be unreasonable and unnecessary in the enjoyment and 

 use of the property or injurious to the interests of the co- 

 tenants. 3 A co-tenant is not entitled to contribution 

 from a co-tenant for expenditures for the preservation or 

 benefit of wo'odland. 4 



48. A Liberal Construction is Given the Law in 

 America when Land is Cleared for Cultivation. In 



most American jurisdictions consideration will be given 

 not only to the effect of the cutting upon the inheritance, 

 but also to the purpose of the cutting, and it is usually held 

 that a tenant is not guilty of waste if he cuts timber only 

 to a reasonable extent and for the purpose of fitting the 

 land for cultivation or pasture. 5 The stern purpose of 



1. Dodcl v. Watson, 57 X. C. 4S. <2 Am. Dec. ->77 ; Sec 1 also Adamson v. Adamson 



17 Out. 407. 



2. Hensal v. Wright, 10 Pa. Co. Ct. 4 Hi (Act May 4, 1S69). 



3. Benedict v. Torrent, S3 Mich. 1S1, 47 X. W. 129, 21 Am. St. Rep. 589, 11 L. R. A. 



278; See Klwell v. Burnside, 44 Barb. 447. 



4. Beaty v. Bordwell, 91 Pa. St. 438; Deck's Appeal, 57 Pa. St. 4ti7; Anderson v. 



Greble, 1 Ashm. 13(3; Ward v. Ward, 40 W. Vn. 611, 21 S. K. 740. 52 Am. St. 

 Hep. 911, 29 I,. K. A. 449; Alexander v. Ellison, 79 Ky. 148; Carver v. Miller, 

 4 Mass. 559; Gregg v. Patterson, 9 Watts & S. (Pa.) 197; Bowies' Case, 11 Coke 

 791), 77 Kng. Reprint 1252. 



5. Ala. Alexander v. Kisher, 7 Ala. 514. 



Cal. McCord v. Oakland Quicksilver Min. Co., 61 Cal. 134, 49 Am. Rep. fiS(5. 



Gil. Dickinson v. .Jones, 3(i Ga. 97; Woodward v. Gates, 3S Ga. 205. 



111. Bond v. Lock wood, 33 III. 220. 



Ind. Daw-son v. Cotfman, 28 Ind. 220. 



Ky. McOracken v. McCracken, 6 T. B. Mon. 342; Hickman v. Irvine, 3 Dana 



121. 



Me. Drown v. Smith, 52 Me. 141. 

 Md. Adams v. Brereton, 3 llarr. ct J. 124. 

 Mass. Pynchon v. Stearns, 11 Mete. 304, 45 Am. Dec. 207. 

 Miss. Cannon v. Barry, 5(i Miss. 289; Warren Co. v. Cans, 80 Miss. 76. 

 Mo. Profitt v. Henderson, 29 Mo. 325; Davis v. Clark, 40 Mo. App. 515. 

 Nebr. Disher v. Disher, 45 Nebr. 100, 65 N. W. 308. 

 X. H. Chase v. Hazolton. 7 N. 11. 171 ; Miles v. Miles, 32 X. II. 147, 64 Am. Dec. 



362. 

 X. J. Morehouse v. Cotheal, 22 X. J. L. 521; Den V. Kinney, 5 X. J. L. 634; 



Gaines v. Green Pond Iron Min. Co., 33 N. J. Eq. 003. 



X. Y. Harder v. Harder. 28 Barb. 409; Kidd v. Dennison, 6 Barb. 9; People v. 

 (Foot note 5 continued on next page) 



