76 CIVIL TIMBER TRESPASS 



land 1 according to which gives the highest measure of damages. 2 

 Furthermore, the injured party has been allowed to recover 

 both for the value of the trees and for the diminution in 

 value of the land caused by the cutting. 3 And in deter- 



( Footnote 3 concluded from preceding page) 

 Mich. Gates v. Comstock, 113 Mich. 127. 7 N. W. 515; Skeels v. Starrett; 57 



Mich. 350. 



Minn. Garner v. Chicago, St. P. M. & O. Ry. 43 Minn. 375, 45 N. W. 713. 

 Mo. Atkinbon v. Atlantic Etc. R. Co., 63 Mo. 367. 

 Mont. Nelson v. Big Blackfoot Min. Co. 17 Mont. 553, 44 Pac. 81. 

 Neb. Hart v. Chi. & N. W. Ry. 83 Neb. 652, 120 N. W. 933; Kansas City & 



O. R. R. v. Rogers 48 Neb. 653, 67 N. W. 602. Fremont, Etc. R. Co 



v. Crum, 30 Neb. 70. 



N. H. Beede v. Lamprey, 64 N. H. 510, 10 Am. St. Rep. 426. 

 N. J. Delaware Etc. R. Co. v. Salmon, 39 N. J. L. 316, 23 Am. Rep. 214. 

 N. Y. Whitbeck v. N. Y. C. R. R. 36 Barb. (N. Y.) 644. 

 Pa. Chase v. Clearfleld Lbr. Co. 209 Pa. 422, 58 Atl. 813. 

 R. I. Spink v.N. Y. N. H. & H. R. R. 26 R. I. 115, 58 Atl. 499. 

 S. D. White v. Chicago Etc. R. Co., I S. Dak. 326. 

 Tenn. Burke v. Louisville Etc. R. Co. 7 (Heisk) 451, 19 Am. Rep. 618. 

 Vt. Kilby v. Erwin, 84 Vt. 270. 78 Atl. 1021; Chase v. Hoosac T. & W. R. R. 



81 Atl. 236. 

 Va. Virginia Ry. v. Hurt 72 S. E. 1 10 (Holding value after the burning must be 



considered, contra Manitou & P. P. Ry. v. Harris 45 Col. 185, 101 Pac. 



61, Dec. 1909). 



U. S. U. S. v. Taylor 35 Fed. 484 (1888). 

 Eng. Wild v. Holt, 9 M. & W. 672; Martin v. Porter, 5 M. & W. 351. 



1. Ala. Southern Bell Telephone Co. v. Francis, 109 Ala. 234, 55 Am. St. Rep. 930. 

 Ark. St. Louis etc. R. Co. v. Ayres. 67 Ark. 371. 



Cal. Chipman v. Hibbard, 6 Cal. 162. 



Del. Bullock v. Porter 77 Atl. 943 (1910) fire. 



Ky. Kentucky Stave Co. v. Page (1910) 125 S. W. 170. 



Mich. Thompson v. Moiles, 46 Mich. 42; Achey v. Hull, 7 Mich. 423. 



Minn. Carner v. Chicago etc. R. Co., 43 Minn. 375; 45 N. W. 713. 



N. H. Wallace v. Goodall, 18 N. H. 439. 



N. Y. Evans v. Keystone Gas Co., 148 N. Y. 112, 42 N. E. 513, 51 Am. St. Rep. 

 681; McCrudden v. Rochester R. Co., 5 Misc. 59, 25 N. Y. Suppl. 114 

 [Aff'd. in 77 Hun. 609, 28 N. Y. Suppl. 1135 (Aflf'd. in 151 N. Y. 

 Suppl. 623, 45 N. E. 1133)]; Parker v. Sherwood, 125 N. Y. Suppl. 297 

 (1910) fire; Argotsinger v. Vines, 82 N. Y. 308; Van Deusen v. Young 

 29 N. Y. 9; Easterbrook v. Erie R. Co., 51 Barb. 94; Harder v. Harder, 

 26 Barb. 409; Cook v. Brockway, 21 Barb. 331; Bevier v. Del. etc. Canal 

 Co., 13 Hun. 254. 



N. C. Brickell v. Camp Mfg. Co. 147 N. C. 118. 60 S. E. 905 (1908). (Declaration 

 of agent admissible.) Wall v. Holloman 72 S. E. 369; Jenkins v. Mont- 

 gomery Lbr. Co. 70 S. E. 633. 



Tex. Hooper v. Smith (Tex. Civ. App. 1899). 53 S. W. 65. 



Wis. Nelson v. Churchill, 117 Wis. 10, 93 N. W. 799. (Evidence as to value 

 mfd. product & cost mf'r admissible to show depreciation of land.) 



2. Knisely v. Hire, 2 Ind. App. 86, 28 N. E. 195; Park v. Northport Smelting etc. Co., 



47 Wash. 597, 92 Pac. 442; Hooper v. Smith (Tex. Civ. App. 1899), 53 S. W. 65; 

 Cf. Gustin v. Jose, 11 Wash. 348, 39 Pac. 687; Fremont etc. R. Co. v. Crum, 

 30 Neb. 70; Cathcart v. Bowman, 5 Pa. St. 317; Bailey v. Chicago etc. R. Co., 

 3 S. Dak. 531, 54 N. W. 596. 19 L. R. A. 653. 



3. Kan. Atchison, Topeka & S. F. R. v. Geiser, 68 Kan. 281. 75 Pac. 68 (1904). 



(Fire, setting of by engine prima facie evidence of negligence under 



statute.) 



Ky. Lindsay v. Latham, 107 S. W. 267, 32 Ky. L. Rep. 867. 

 Mich. Miller v. Wellman, 75 Mich. 353, 42 N. W. 843. Skeels v. Starret. 57 Mich 



350. 



(Footnote 3 continued on next page) 



