56 REMEDIES FOR WASTE 



for waste while others provide that the damages "may" x 

 be assessed at three times the waste. Under some of them 

 forfeiture cannot be decreed, 2 and generally the allow- 

 ance of multiple damages is discretionary with the court 

 and will be confined to cases of wilful or malicious waste. 3 

 Double and treble damages cannot be obtained in an equita- 

 ble action. An action on the case in the nature of waste is 

 generally used to recover actual damages as a penalty for 

 the waste. 4 



60. Multiple Damage and Forfeiture Statutes 

 are not Strictly Enforced Against Co-tenants. The 



cutting down of trees by one tenant in common to the 

 injury of his co-tenant constitutes waste for which an 

 action on the case or the statutory action regarding waste 

 may be brought. 5 Double and treble damages have been 

 allowed 6 against a co-tenant, but the courts show a re- 

 luctancy to apply this rule where property is held in com- 

 mon 7 and where, subsequent to the enactment of a statute 

 giving treble damages for waste, a statute gave to co- 

 tenants all existing remedies against a tenant cutting with- 

 out notice, it was held that the last act did not extend the 

 first act to property held in common. 8 It has also been 



1. California Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 732; Idaho Code Civ. Proc. 1901, Sec. 3374; Minn- 



Rev. Laws, 19O5, Sec. 4447; Montana Rev. Code 1907, Sec. 6866; Nevada 

 Comp. Laws 1900, Sec. 3347; N. Car. Rev. St. 1905, Sec. 7539; North Dakota 

 Rev. Codes 1905, Sec. 753; So. Dakota Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 693; Utah Comp. 

 Laws 1907, Sec. 3507. 



2. Chipman v. Emeric, 3 Cal. 273 ; See p. 736 of Tiffany's Land. & Ten. 



3. Isom v. Book, 142 Cal. 666, 76 Pac. 506; Isom v. Rex Crude Oil Co., 140 Cal. 678, 



74 Pac. 294; Sherrill v. Conner, 107 N. C. 543, 12 S. E. 588. 



4. Shields v. Lawrence, 72 N. C. 43. 



5. Novels v. Ky. Lbr. Co., 108 Ky. 550, 56 S. W. 969, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 247, 94 Am. St. 



Rep. 388, 49 L. R. A. 416; Elwell v. Burnside, 44 Barb. (N. Y.) 447; Hawley v. 

 Clowes, 2 Johns (N. Y.) 122; Johnson v. Johnson, 2 Hill Eq. (S. C.) 277, 29 

 Am. Dec. 72; Dodge v. Davis, 85 Iowa 77, 52 N. W. 2; Sheppard v. Pettit, 30 

 Minn. 119, 14 N. W. 511; Dodd v. Watson, 57 N. C. 48, 72 Am. Dec. 577; 

 Bradley v. Reed, 2 Pittsb. (Pa.) 519; Cf. Darden v. Cowper, 52 N. C. 210, 75 

 Am. Dec. 461, action for accounting; See 30 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law 294. 



6. Mills v. Richardson, 44 Me. 79; Dwinell v. Larrabee, 38 Me. 464; Clow v. Plum- 



mer, 85 Mich. 550, 48 N. W. 795; Wheeler v. Carpenter, 107 Pa. St. 271; See 

 also Cyc. 38, p. 89, 90. 



7. Smith v. Sharpe, Busb. L. (44 N. C.) 91, 57 Am. Dec. 574. 



8. Central Trust Co. v. N. Y. Equipment Co., 87 Hun. (N. Y.) 421, 34 N. Y. Suppl. 



349; Wheeler v. Carpenter, 107 Pa. St. 271. 



