62 REMEDIES FOR WASTE 



Where the title to the timber was in the complainant 

 but the title to the land in another a Florida court refused 

 an injunction, l but a California case announced the con- 

 trary view; 2 and where the applicant for an injunction 

 urged that there was a mistake in the contract of sale under 

 which the defendant claimed the right to cut the trees, but 

 the contract was not ambiguous in terms, a Georgia court 

 refused to grant an injunction when no suit was pending. 3 

 Injunctions .against the cutting of timber have been granted 

 to prevent a multiplicity of suits. 4 Although damages 

 for such injury may be recovered at law, injunctions will 

 be granted to prevent the destruction of ornamental, shade 

 and fruit trees, 5 regardless of whether the trees were 

 planted or grew naturally. The extent to which injunction 

 against the cutting of timber will be granted is regulated 

 by statute in some states. 6 In accordance with the gen- 

 eral principle that where there is an adequate legal remedy 

 injunction should not issue most courts will refuse to en- 

 join the removal of trees which have been cut down. 7 

 But if timber has been cut after the issuance of a restrain- 

 ing order but before service thereof its removal will be en- 

 joined, 8 and where injunction lies to restrain further cutting 



1. Doke v. Peek, 45 Fla. 244, 34 So. 896. 



2. Sears v. Ackerman, 138 Cal. 583, 72 Pac. 171. 



3. Swindell v. Saddler, 122 Ga. 15, 49 S. E. 753. 



4. Owens v. Lewis, 46 Ind. 488, 15 Am. Rep. 295; O'Hara v. Johns, 7 Ky. L. Rep. 



296; Echert v. Ferst, 10 Phila. (Pa.) 514; King v. Stuart, 84 Fed. 546. 



5. Cal. Silva v. Garcia, 65 Cal. 591, 4 Pac. 628. 

 111. Smith v. Price, 39 111. 28, 89 Am. Dec. 284. 

 Md. Shipley v. Ritter, 7 Md. 408, 61 Am. Dec. 371. 

 Xeb. "Sapp v. Roberts, 18 Neb. 299, 25 N. W. 96. 

 N. J. Tainter v. Morristown, 19 N. J. Eq. 46. 



Vt. Smith v. Pettingill , 15 Vt. 82, 40 Am. Dec. 667. 

 Wis. Wilson v. Mineral Point, 39 Wis. 160. 



6. Fla. McDonald v. Padgett, 46 Fla. 501, 35 So. 336; Doke v. Peet, 45 Fla. 244. 



34 So. 896; McMillan v. Wiley, 45 Fla. 487, 33 So. 993; Louisville, etc. 



R. Co. v. Gibson, 43 Fla. 315, 31 So. 230. 

 Ga. Swindell v. Saddler, 122 Ga. 15, 49 S. E. 753; Wiggins v. Middleton, 117 



Ga. 162, 43 S. E. 432; Powell v. Brinson, 120 Ga. 36, 47 S. E. 499: \\l\- 



cox Lumber Co. v. Bullock, 109 Ga. 532, 35 S. E. 52; Camp v. Dixon, 



111 Ga. 674,36 S. E. 878. 

 N. C. John L. Roper Lbr. Co. v. Wallace, 93 N. C. 22; Kistler v. Weaver, 135 



X. C. 388, 47 S. E. 478. 



7. Miss Xorth Lumber Co. v. Gary. 83 Miss. 640, 36 So. 2. X. J. Worthington 



v. Moon, 53 N. J. Eq. 46, 30 Atl. 251. N. Y. Van Wyck v. Alliger, 6 Barb. 

 507; Spear v. Cutter, 5 Barb. 486, 4 How. Pr. 175, 2 Code Rep. 100; Winship 

 v. Pitts, 3 Paige 259; Watson v. Hunter, 5 Johns Ch. 169, 9 Am. Dec. 295; 

 Johnson v. White, 11 Barb. 194; Cf. Disbrow v. Westchester Hardwood Co., 

 17 X. Y. App. Div. 610, 45 X. Y. Suppl. 376. 

 8- King v. Campbell, 85 Fed. 814. 



