54 REMEDIES FOR WASTE 



57. The Remedy Applicable to Tenants at Will. 



As has been previously observed tenants at will were not 

 generally regarded as within the purview of the statutes 

 of Marlbridge and Gloucester on the ground that acts, 

 which would constitute waste if done by other classes of 

 tenants, would constitute trespass if done by tenants at 

 will. Such trespass would end the tenancy and give rise 

 to an action for damages against the tenant at will as against 

 any person guilty of a tort. 1 The proper form of such 

 action is evidently trespass and not trespass on the case. 



58. Damages Recoverable at Law. In an action 

 for waste the measure of damages will be the harm done 

 the inheritance. 2 The jury must determine the extent 

 of the diminution in value of the estate in reversion or re- 

 mainder by reason of the acts of waste committed and 

 they cannot consider an increase in the value of the prop- 

 erty as a result of the unlawful acts in the fixing of the 

 damages to the inheritance. 3 Under a count in trover in 

 an action on the case in the nature of waste for the cutting 

 of timber ^he plaintiff may recover the value of the timber 

 as appreciated by the wrong-doer's skill and labor; 4 

 but the extent of the damage to the inheritance resulting 

 from the cutting of timber is not determined solely by the 

 value of the wood and timber removed. 5 



59. Multiple Damages and Forfeiture Provided 

 by Statute. Although under the early common law only 

 single damages were recoverable for waste and no forfeiture 

 of the estate of the wrong doer could be decreed, the Statute 

 of Gloucester provided for treble damages and the forfeiture 



1. Chalmers v. Smith, 152 Mass. 561; Perry v. Carr, 44 N. H. 118; Phillips v. Covert, 



7 Johns (N. Y.) 1; Tobey v. Webster, 3 Johns (N. Y.) 468; Campbell v. Arnold, 

 1 Johns (N. Y.) 511; Land. & Ten., Tiffany, Ed. 1910, p. 724. 



2. Amer. Freehold Land Mortg. Co. .v. Pollard, 132 Ala. 155, 32 So. 630; Evans v. 



Kohn, 113 Minn. 45, 128 N. W. 1006; Tate v. Field, 57 N. J. Eq. 632, 40 Atl. 

 206; Robinson v. Kinne, 1 Thomps. & C. (N. Y.) 60; Kent v. Bentley, 10 Ohio 

 Cir. Ct. 132, 6 Ohio Cir. Dec. 457; McCullough v. Irvine, 13 Pa. St. 438; Morris 

 v. Knight, 14 Pa. Super. Ct. 324; Bodkin v. Arnold, 48 W. Va. 10'8, 35 S. E. 980. 



3. Van Deusen v. Young, 29 N. Y. 9; Purton v. Watson, 2 N. Y. Suppl. 661 ; Fagan 



v. Whitcomb (Tex. App.), 14 S. W. 1018; Hamcien v. Rice, 24 Conn. 350. 



4. Harris v. Goslin, 3 Hair. (Del.) 340; But see Nelson v. Churchill, 117 Wis. 10, 93 



N. W. 799. 



5. Perdue v. Brooks, 85 Ala. 459, 5 So. 126; Disbrow v. Westchester Hardwood Co., 



164 N. Y. 415, 58 N. E. 519 (reversing 17 N. Y. App. Div. 610, 45 N.Y. Suppl. 

 376); Harder v. Harder, 26 Barb. (N. Y.) 409; Winship v. Pitts, 3 Paige (N. 

 Y.) 259; But see Worrall v. Nunn, 53 N. Y. 185. 



