TRESPASSER ACQUIRES NO TITLE 73 



73 A Trespasser Acquires No Right in Timber Cut. 



If trees are cut by a trespasser the title to them remains in 

 the owner of the land and his subsequent grantee or lessee 

 may maintain an action of de bonis against the trespasser 

 for a removal after the grantee or lessee obtains posses- 

 sion. 1 In fact the trespasser can acquire no rights as 

 against the true owner who may without legal liability ap- 

 propriate the timber product 2 upon which the trespasser 

 has bestowed labor and enjoy the benefit of such expendi- 

 ture. 3 A recovery by the land owner from the trespasser 

 for breaking and entering does not vest in the trespasser 

 the title to the trees severed, 4 even though they have been 

 made into charcoal, 5 or the full value of the trees has been 

 paid in a compromise of the action. G Nor does a trespasser 

 acquire the title to severed timber necessary to support 

 an action against a stranger. 7 A person who gives a 

 license for the cutting of trees upon another's land is him- 

 self liable at law for the trespass whether the authorization 

 be express 8 or implied; and so is one who advises or 

 encourages the trespass. 10 



74 The Measure of Damages in Trespass upon 

 Realty. If the action for the cutting of standing trees is 

 brought in the form of a trespass upon realty (quare dausum 

 fregit}, the measure of damages should evidently be the 

 difference between the market value of the land before the 

 trespass and its value after the trespass, n but the recovery 

 of an additional amount for a trespass upon the logs cut 

 from the trees, as personal property, has been allowed in 

 such action. 12 The determination of the amount of damage 

 done to the land will often rest largely, or entirely, upon 



1. G Ion wood Lbr. Co. v. Phillips (1901) A. ('. to.'). 7:; I.. .1. 1'. C. 02, 110 I.. T. Rep. 



N. S. 741, 20 T. L. K. 331. 



2. Burris v. Johnson, 1 J. .1. Marsh (Ky.) I'.Mi; Stevens v. Perrier 12 Kan. 21)7. 



3. Bush v. Fisher, S9 .Mich. 192, 50 N. \V. 7SS; Stewart v. Tucker, 100 Ala. 319, 17 



So. 385. Gates v. Rifle Boom Co. 70 Mich 309. 



4. Loonn's v. Green, 7 Me. 3S6. 



r>. Curtis v. Groat, (i Johns, (X. Y.) 1GS, 5 Am. Dec. 20 I. 

 f>. Betts v. Lee, 5 Johns (N T . Y.) 34S, 4 Am. Dec. .'His. 



7. Brock v. Smith, 14 Ark. 431; See Carpenter v. Lewis, G Ala. GS2. 



8. Cook v. Amer. Exch. Bank, 129 N. C. 149, 39 S. K. 740; Chandler v. Speer, 22 Vt. 



3SS; State v. Smith, 78 Me. 200, 4 Atl. 412, 57 Am. Kep. S02. 



9. Marshall v. Eggleston, 82 111. App. 52; Sanboni v. Sturtevant. 17 Minn. 200. 



10. Quillen v. Betts, 1 Pennew (Del.) 53. 



11. Davies v. Miller-Brent Lbr. Co.. 15 L Ala. 580, 44 So. G3-). 



12. Trustees Dartmouth College v. Intn'l Paper Co., 132 Fed. 95. 



