CLEARING LAND FOR CULTIVATION 45 



will have a bearing upon this question, l and the decision 

 whether the cat complained of was good husbandry or not 

 is one of fact, to be left to the jury. 2 It has been said that, 

 where a farm was leased for a rental and all of the farm 

 except a few acres consisted of wild and uncultivated land, 

 the parties to the lease must be held to have intended that 

 the lessee might fell part of the timber so as to fit the land 

 for cultivation. 3 The clearing of sixteen acres in addi- 

 tion to thirty acres already cleared on premises which com- 

 prised two hundred and forty acres of heavily timbered 

 land has been held not to be unreasonable nor so prejuidicial 

 to the rights of the remainderman as to constitute waste. 4 

 Where a lease required the tenant to reduce to cultivation 

 the uncleared portions of the premises the cutting of timber 

 on such portions was held not to be waste. 5 But although 

 a tenant for years may gradually clear woodland in prepar- 

 tion for cultivation, he will not be permitted to cut timber, 

 on that pretext, just before the completion of his lease. 6 

 In such cases the proportion of the woodland to the whole 

 tract in possession of the tenant and the relative value 

 of the trees destroyed must be considered in deciding whether 

 the act complained of is actually waste, 7 and the fact 

 that but a small proportion is woodland will go far toward 

 limiting the tenant's right to remove. 8 Where a life 

 tenant had permitted a pasture go grow up to trees, it was 

 held he could not then cut the trees even though it might 



1. Morehouse v. Cotheal, 22 N. J. L. (2 Zab. 521; McCullough v. Irvine's Exr's, 13 



Pa. 438; Proffitt v. Henderson, 29 Mo. 329; Drown v. Smith, 52 Me. 141; 

 Findlay v. Smith, 6 Munf. (Va-.) 134. 8 Am. Dec. 733. 



2. Woodward v. Gates, 38 Ga. 205; Drown v. Smith, 52 Me. 141; Morehouse v. 



Cotheal, 22 N. J. L. 521; Keeler v. Eastman, 11 Vt. 293; McCay v. Wait, 51 

 Barb. (N. Y.) 225; Drake v. Wigle, 22 U. C. C. P. 341; Jackson v. Brown- 

 son, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 227, 5 Am. Dec. 258. 



3. Kidd v. Dennison, 6 Barb. (N. Y.) 9. 



4. Lambeth v. Warner, 2 Jones Eq. (55 N. C.) 165; See likewise, Joyner v. Speed, 68 



N. C. 236. 



5. McDaniel v. Callan, 75 Ala. 327. 



6. Kidd v. Dennison, supra. 



7. Alexander v. Fisher, 7 Ala. 514; Warren County v. Gans, 80 Miss. 76, 31 So. 539; 



McCracken v. McCracken, 6 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 342; Lambeth v. Warner, 55 

 N. C. 165; Joyner v. Speed, 68 N. C. 236; Shine v. Wiicox, 21 N. C. 631; See 

 McCaulay v. Dismal Swamp Land Co., 2 Rob. (Va.) 507. 



8. Powell v. Cheshire, 70 Ga. 357, 48 Am. Dec. 572; Duncombe v. Felt, 81 Mich. 



332, 45 N. W. 1004; Hastings v. Crunckleton, 3 Yeates (Pa.) 261; McLeod v. 

 Dial, 63 Ark. 10, 37 S. W. 306; Kidd v. Dennison, 6. Barb. (N Y.) 9; Jackson 

 v. Brownson, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 227 5 Am. Dec. 258. 



