52 REMEDIES FOR WASTE 



it seems the rule now that it does lie. * However, it 

 has been held that it does not lie against a tenant who 

 converted to his use trees which had been thrown by the 

 wind. 2 Privity of estate seems to be necessary in a 

 few jurisdictions, 3 but generally privity is unnecessary 

 to the maintenance of an action on the case in the nature 

 of waste. 4 It cannot be maintained by one having 

 merely a contingent interest. 5 In most jurisdictions the 

 action may be brought by one having a future estate for 

 life or years, as well as by one having an estate in fee with 

 an intervening estate for life or years; 6 and it may be 

 maintained even against a stranger. 7 



55. Statutory Remedies for Waste. In mnay Amer- 

 ican states there is express statutory provision for the re- 

 covery of damages for waste committed by a tenant for 

 life or years, 8 and in some states the statute covers waste 

 by any tenant of land. It is probable that a tenant from 

 year to year or month to month would be included within 

 the purview of a statute applying in terms to a tenant 

 for years. 9 Even where the statutes of Marlbridge and 

 Gloucester are held not to be in force and there is no state 

 statute on the subject, an action of trespass on the case, 

 or its equivalent code action, will doubtless be available 



1. Parrott v. Barney, Deady (U. S.) 409; White v. Wagner, 4 Har. & J. (Md.) 373, 



7 Am. Dec. 674; Stevens v. Rose, 69 Mich. 259; Dozier v. Gregory, 1 Jones L. 

 (46 N. C.) 100. 



2. Shult v. Barker, 12 S. & R. (Pa.) 272. 



3. Hatch v. Hatch, 1 Ohio Dec. 270; Lauder v. Hall, 69 Wis. 326; Whitney v. Mor- 



row, 34 Wis. 644; Foot v. Dickinson, 2 Mete. (Mass.) 611. 



4. Dickinson v. Baltimore, 48 Md. 583; Dozier v. Gregory, 1 Jones L. (46 N. C.) 100; 



Williams v. Lanier, Bush. L. (44 N. C.) 30; Dupree v. Dupree, 4 Jones L. 

 (49 N. C.) 387, 69 Am. Dec. 757; Chase v. Hazelton, 7 N. H. 171; Randall v. 

 Cleaveland, 6 Conn. 328; Robinson v. Wheeler, 25 N. Y. 252; But see, Hunt v. 

 Hall, 37 Me. 363. 



5. Sager v. Galloway, 113 Pa. St. 500. 



6. Purton v. Watson, 19 N. Y. St. Rep. 6; Howard v. Patrick, 38 Mich. 795; Mc- 



Laughlin v. Long, 5 Har. & J. (Md.) 113; Dozier v. Gregory, 46 N. C. 100. 



7. Parrot v. Barney, Deady, U. S. 405, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,773a; Randall v. Cleave- 



land, 6 Conn. 328; Chase v. Hazelton, 7 N. H. 171 ; Elliott v. Smith, 2 N. H. 430; 

 Williams v. Lanier, Busb. L. (44 N. C.) 30; See Ripka v. Sergeant, 7 W. & S. 

 (Pa.) 9, 42 Am. Dec. 214; But to Contrary: Livingston v. Haywood, 11 Johns 

 (N. Y.) 429; Bates v. Shraeder, 13 Johns (N. Y.) 260, both under N. Y. statute; 

 and see Livingston v. Mott, 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 605. 



8. For statutes see Land. & Ten., Tiffany, Ed. 1910, p. 725 and 726, Vol. 1; and see 



Curtiss v. Livingston, 36 Minn. 380; Robinson v. Wheeler, 25 N. Y. 252. 



9. Land. & Ten., Tiff., page 726. 



