MULTIPLE DAMAGES AND FORFEITURE 55 



of the estate. 1 In several of the United States the pro- 

 visions of the Statute of Gloucester are held to be still 

 in force. 2 However, forfeiture will be decreed only when 

 there is wanton voluntary waste, or the injury to the estate 

 in inheritance is considered equal to the value of the un- 

 expired term. 3 Forfeiture is not favored 4 and in the 

 United States, as in England, must be confined to the 

 particular thing wasted. 5 Thus the cutting of a few 

 trees in a woodlot has been held not to work a forfeiture 

 of the whole lot; 6 but the whole would be forfeited if the 

 cutting were scattered over the lot. 7 A forfeiture may 

 be waived by the reversioner. 8 Statutes in many Ameri- 

 can States allow either double or treble damages 9 for 

 waste and several allow forfeiture. 10 Most of these statutes 

 are held to be merely supplementary to or confirmatory 11 

 of the common law rule. However, they are considered 

 to be penal in nature and will be construed strictly. 12 

 Some of them say that treble damages "shall" 13 be allowed 



1. Roby v. Newton, 121 Ga. 679, 49 S. E. 694, 68 L. R. A. 601; Smith v. Sharpe, 44 



N. C. 91, 57 Am. Dec. 574; Richards v. Noble, 3 Meriv. 673, 36 Eng. Reprint 

 258. 



2. Hasty v. Wheeler, 12 Me. 434; Sackett v. Sackett, 8 Pick. (Mass.) 309; Sherrill 



v. Conner, 107 N. C. 543, 12 S. E. 588; Willard v. Willard, 56 Pa. St. 119; Robin- 

 son v. Kinne, 70 N. Y. 147; McCartney v. Titsworth, 119 N. Y. App. Div. 547, 

 104 N. Y. Suppl. 45; Thurston v. Muston, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 14,013, 3 Cranch 

 C. C. 335. 



3. Roby v. Newton, 121 Ga. 679; Bollonbacher v. Fritts, 98 Ind. 50; Harder v. Harder, 



26 Barb. (N. Y.) 409. 



4. Willard v. Willard, 56 Pa. St. 119; Phelan v. Boylan, 25 Wis. 679; Woodward v. 



Gates, 38 Ga. 205; Sackett v. Sackett 5 Pick. (Mass.) 191; Kent v. Bentley, 6 

 Ohio Cir. Dec. 457, 10 Ohio Cir. Ct. 132. 



5. Chipman v. Emeric, 3 Cal. 273; Smith v. Mattingly, 96 Ky. 228, 28 S. W. 503, 



16 Ky. L. Rep. 18; Morehouse v. Cotheal, 22 N. J. L. 521; Jackson v. Tibbitts, 

 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 341; Coke Litt. 54a. 



6. Waples v. Waples, 2 Harr. (Del.) 281; Padelford v. Padelford, 7 Pick. (Mass.) 152. 



7. Waples v. Waples, 2 Harr. (Del.) 281; Morehouse v. Cotheal, 22 N. J. L. 521; 



Smith v. Sharpe, 44 N. C. 91, 57 Am. Dec. 574. 



8. Hickman v. Irvine, 3 Dana (Ky.) 121. 



9. See Mich. Comp. Laws 1897, Sec. 11121; Wisconsin St. 1898, Sec. 3176. 



10. Del. Rev. Code, 1893, p. 666, Sec. 9; Ky. St. 1903, Sec. 2328; Me. Rev. St. 1903, 



Ch, 97, Sec. 1; Neb. Ann. St. 1903, Sec. 1646 (if injury over two thirds value of 

 tenant's estate); N. J. Gen. St., p. 3749, Sec. 3; N. C. Rev. St. 1905, Sec. 853; 

 R. I. Gen. Law 1896, Chap. 268, Sec. 1; S. C. Civ. Code, Sec. 2425; Forfeiture 

 when done maliciously and equal to residue of tenant's estate. See many cita- 

 under note 830 on p. 736, Tiffany, Land. & Ten. 1910 Ed. 



11. Bullock v. Hay ward, 10 Allen (Mass.) 460. 



12. Adams v. Palmer, 6 Gray (Mass.) 338. 



13. Kentucky St. 1903, Sees. 2328, 2334; Maine Rev. St. 1903, C. 97, Sec. 1; Nebraska 



Ann. St. 1907, Sec. 1645; 3 New Jersey Gen. St., p. 3749, Sec. 3; New York Code 

 Civil Proc., Sec. 1655; Bell & C. St. Oregon Sec. 347; Virginia Code 1904, Sec. 

 2778 (if waste wanton ) 



