TRESPASS UPON SEVERED TREES 71 



statutory period, l will not alone afford such evidence 

 of ownership as to support a claim of possession adverse 

 to the true owner such occupation comprising rather a 

 series of trespasses. It has also been held that mere entry 

 upon land and the cutting of timber thereon was not' suf- 

 ficient possession in itself to support an action of forcible 

 entry and detainer. 2 



71 Trespass upon Severed Trees as Personalty. 



A conveyance of land does not pass title to timber that has 

 een lawfully severed by either the owner or another, 3 but 

 it does revoke any license that has been given for the cutting 

 of timber thereon. 4 A license from a mortgagor to take 

 timber has been held to constitute no defense against an 

 action by a purchaser under a foreclosure sale, 5 nor will 

 authority from a widow before the assignment of dower 

 afford protection from an action of trespass. 6 It has 

 even been held that the licensor may revoke the license 

 as to wood already severed and maintain trespass for a 

 subsequent removal 7 but other courts have held that if 

 the timber was lawfully severed under the license the 

 owner of the land cannot prevent its removal by the one 

 who severed or by his assignee. 8 



If land is in the possession of a tenant, severance ends 

 the tenant's interest in the trees severed and the owner can 

 without entry bring an action in trover or replevin against 

 a third person who servers and removes during the ten- 



1. Caskey v. Lewis, 15 B. Mon. (Ky.) 27: Adams v. Robinson, 6 Pa. St. 271; Wash- 



abaugh v. Entriken, 34 Pa. St. 74, 36 Pa. St. 513; Ewing v. Alcorn, 40 Pa. St. 

 492; Wilson v. Blake, 53 Vt. 305; See, Voight v. Meyer, 42 N. 'Y. App. Div. 

 350, 59 N. Y. Suppl. 70; But See, Bynum v. Carter, 26 N. C. 310 (Annual tur- 

 pentining); Flannery v. Hightower, 97 Ga. 592, 25 S. E. 371; See also, Fred- 

 erick v. Goodbee, 120 La. 783, 45 So. 606; Safford v. Basto, 4 Mich. 406; Tred- 

 well v. Reddick, 23 N. C. 56; Haseltine v. Mosher, 51 Wis. 443, 8 N.W. 273. 



2. Wilson v. Stivers, 4 Dana (Ky.) 634; Humphrey v. Jones, 3 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 261; 



Powell v. Davis, 54 Mo. 215; Bell v. Cowan, 34 Mo. 251; See, Chessen v. Har- 

 relson, 119 Ala. 435, 24 So. 716; See Also, Conway v. Duane, 45 Cal. 597; Ham- 

 mond v. Doty, 184 111. 246, 56 N. E. 371 (Aff'm'g 84 111. App. 19). Millett v. 

 Mullen, (Me.) 49 Atl. 871. 



3. Woodruff v. Roberts, 4 La. Ann. 127; Berthold v. Holman, 12 Minn. 335, 93 Am 



Dec. 233; Peck v. Brown, 5 Nov. 81 ; Schmidt v. Voght, 8 Ore. 344. 



4. Putney v. Day, 6 N. H. 430, 25 Am. Dec. 470; Paine v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 14 



Fed. 407, 4 McCrary 586 (Aff'd in 119 U. S. 561, 7 Sup. Ct. 323, 30 L. Ed. 513.) 



5. Jarvis v. Edgett, 6 N. Brunsw. 66. 



6. Lowery v. Rowland, 104 Ala. 420, 16 So. 88. 



7. Buker v. Bowden, 83 Me. 67, 21 Atl. 748. 



8. Yale v. Seely, 15 Vt. 221 (1843). 



