46 LEGAL WASTE OF TIMBER 



be good husbandry for the owner in fee to restore the land 

 to pasture. 1 



49. But the Removal of Timber Must be 

 Beneficial to the Estate. If it is clearly established 

 that the timber was cut for the purpose of making the land 

 arable, the mere fact that the timber thus removed was 

 sold will not make the tenant liable for waste. 2 If land 

 is cleared for any other purpose than fitting it for culti- 

 vation and the clearing is not manifestly beneficial to the 

 estate it is waste. 3 In fact, clearing for any purpose 

 whatever is waste if it decreases rather than enhances the 

 value of the land, 4 The removal of all the valuable timber 

 even for purposes of cultivation, 5 or of so much that there 

 is not enough left for repairs upon the premises 6 will be 

 held waste. 



50. Cutting of Immature Trees or Those Bear- 

 ing a Special Relationship to Land. Timber trees under 

 twenty years of age can be cut by a tenant only for the 

 purpose of thinning the growth for the benefit of the other 



1. Clark v. Holden, 7 Gray (Mass.) 8, 66 Am. Dec. 450. 



2. Cannon v. Barry, 59 Miss. 289; Warren Co. Supr. v. Cans, 80 Miss. 76, 31 So. 539; 



Proffitt v. Henderson, 29 Mo. 325; Kidd v. Dennison, 6 Barb. (N. Y.) 9; Davis 

 v. Gilliam, 40 N. C. (5 Ired. Eq.) 308; King v. Miller, 99 N. C.583, 6S.E.660; 

 Crockett v. Crockett, 2 Ohio St. 180; Keeler v. Eastman, 11 Vt. 293; Hony- 

 wood v. Honywood, 18 Eq. 306; Lewis v. Godson, 15 Ont. 252; But see Saund- 

 ers v. Breakie, 5 Ont. 603. 



3. Armstrong v. Wilson, 60 111. 226; Cook v. Cook, "7 Mass. (11 Gray) 123. 



4. Ala. Moses v. Johnson, 88 Ala. 517, 16 Am. St. Rep. 58; Alexander v. Fisher, 7 



Ala. 514. 



Del. Fleming v. Collins, 2 Del. Ch. 230; Waples v. Waples, 2 Harr. 281. 

 Ky. Calvert v. Rice, 91 Ky. 533, 34,Am. St. Rep. 240; Loudon v. Warfleld. 5 



J. J. Marsh, 196. 



Me. Maxwell v. Maxwell, 31 Me. 184, 50 Am. Dec. 657. 

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

 Mich. Clow v. Plummer, 85 Mich. 550. 

 Miss. Warren Co. v. Cans, 80 Miss. 76, 31 So. 539. 

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



Hoozer v. Van Hoozer, 18 Mo. App. 19. 

 Nebr. Disher v. Disher, 45 Neb. 100, 63 N. W. 368. 

 N. H. Fuller v. Wason. 7 N. H. 341. 

 N. Y. Kidd v. Dennison, 6 Barb. 9 ; Elwell v. Burnside, 44 Barb. 447 ; Hawley v. 



Clowes, 2 Johns. Ch. 122; Mooers v. Wait, 3 Wend. 104; McCay v. 



Wait, 51 Barb. 225; Johnson v. Brownson, 7 Johns. 227,5 Am. Dec. 258. 

 N. C. Sherrill v. Conner, 107 N. C. 543; Davis v. Gilliam, 5 Ired. Eq. (40 N. C.) 



308; Crawley v. Timberlake, 2 Ired. Eq. (37 N. C.) 480. 

 S. C. Johnson's Admr. v. Johnson, 2 Hill Eq. 277, 29 Am. Dec. 72 ; Hancock 



v. Day, McMull. Eq. 69, 36 Am. Dec. 293. 



5. Proffitt v. Henderson, 29 Mo. 325; Jackson v. Brownson, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 227, 5 



Am. Dec. 258; Duncombe v. Felt, 81 Mich. 332, 45 N. W. 1004. 



6. Johnson v. Johnson, 2 Hill (S. C.) 277, 29 Am. Dec. 72. 



