PRUDENT HUSBANDRY IS THE TEST 47 



trees, 1 except that trees which sprout from the stump may 

 evidently be cut while immature if it has been customary 

 to handle the woodland as a coppice. 2 Fruit trees 3 

 and non-timber trees which sustain a special relationship 

 to the land and are beneficial to the estate, such as willows 

 protecting the bank of a stream, 4 shade trees, 5 or 

 ornamental trees, cannot ordinarily be cut by a tenant 6 

 even though the tenant hold without impeachment for 

 waste. 7 



51 Prudent Husbandry is the Test as to Waste. 



Mere failure of a tenant to do the things required by 

 good husbandry may not be waste, 8 but suffering 

 a pasture to become overgrown with brush in such 

 manner as a farmer of ordinary prudence would not per- 

 mit was considered waste. 9 Allowing cattle or hogs to 

 injure a meadow or fruit trees would ordinarily be 

 waste, 10 but not if the tenant had the right to keep 

 stock and the injury to the trees were the natural 

 result of the keeping of the stock. n The same rules 



1. Honywood v. Honywood, L. R., 18 Eq. 306, 43 L. J. Ch. 652, 30 L. T. Rep. N. S. 



671, 22 Wkly. Rep. 749; Hole v. Thomas, 7 Ves. Jr. 589, 6 Rev. Rep. 195; Bagot 

 v. Bagot, 32 Beav. 509, 8 Jur. N. S. 1022, 33 L. J. Oh. 116, 9 L. T. Rep. N. S. 

 217, 12 Wkly. Rep. 35; Dunn v. Bryan, Ir. R. 7 Eq. 143; Aston v. Aston, 1 Ves. 

 264; Brydges v. Stephens, 6 Madd. 279; Clemence v. Steere, 1 R. I. 272, 53 Am. 

 Dec. 621. 



2. Phillips v. Smith, 14 M. & W. 589; Stripping's Case, 22 Vin. Abr. 449, pi. 11; 



Clemence v. Steere, 1 R. I. 272, 53 Am. Dec. 621 ; Patureau v. Wilbert, 44 La. 

 Ann. 355, 10 So. 782; Cf. Jackson v. Andrew, 18 Johns. (N. Y.) 431; Lashmer 

 v. Avery, Cro. Jac. 126; Humphreys v. Harrison, 1 Jac. & W. 561. 



3. Bewes, Waste, 95; Co. Litt. 53a; Silva v. Garcia, 65 Cal. 591, 4 Pac. 628; Bellows v. 



McGinnis, 17 Ind. 64; Duncombe v. Felt, 81 Mich. 332, 45 N. W. 1004; Welling 

 v. Strickland, 161 Mich. 235, 126 N. W. 471; Kaye v. Banks, 2 Dick. 431; Cf. 

 Anderson v. Hammon, 19 Ore. 446, 20 Am. St. Rep. 832. But removing and 

 selling nursery stock in regular course of business not necessarily waste. Rob- 

 inson v. Russell., 24 Cal. 467; Hamilton v. Austin, 36 Hun. (N. Y.) 138. 



4. Phillips v. Smith, 14 M. & W. 589. 



5. But shade trees in open field which prevent growth of vegetation may be cut as re- 



quired by good husbandry. Sayers v. Hoskinson, 110 Pa. St. 473, 1 Atl. 308. 



6. Honywood v. Honywood, L. R., 18 Eq. 306 above; Dickenson v. Jones, 36 Ga. 



97; Calvert v. Rice, 91 Ky. 533, 16 S. W. 351, 13 Ky. L. Rep. 107, 34 Am. St. 

 Rep. 240. 



7. Stevens v. Rose, 69 Mich. 259, 37 N. W. 305; Clement v. Wheeler, 25 N. H. 361 : 



Hawley v. Wolverton, 5 Paige (N. Y.) 522. For many English citations see 40 

 Cyc. 508, Note 81. See also Am. and Eng. Ency. Law. Vol. 30. p. 256, 257. 



8. Richards v. Torbert, 3 Houst. (Del.) 172; Darden v. Cowper, 52 N. C. 210, 75 Arn. 



Dec. 461. 



9. Clemence v. Steere, 1 R. I. 272, 53 Am. Dec. 621. 



But see Clark v. Hoklen, 7 Gray (Mass.) 8, 66 Am. Dec. 450; Shine v. Wilcox, 1 1 

 N. C. 631. 



10. Warder v. Henry, 117 Mo. 530, 23 S. W. 776; Bellows v. McGinnis, 17 Ind. 64. 



11. Fowler v. Johnstone, 8 Tinnes Law R. 327. 



