HIGHEST MEASURE OF DAMAGES 77 



mining the damages consideration will be given to the relation 

 of the area on which cutting took place to other lands 

 held by the owner, : and to the value of the particular 

 trees cut in connection with the use of the premises. '-' 

 The measure of damages will not ordinarily be affected 

 by changes in the market subsequent to the time of the 

 injury, 3 but the owner is entitled to the value of the 

 wood when put to the most advantageous use for which 

 it was fitted and for which it may reasonably be assumed 

 it might have actually been used. 4 In timber cases as 

 in others speculative damages will not be allowed, 5 but 

 damages may be exemplary. 6 Damages have been given 

 for the destruction of immature timber trees which had no 

 market value. 7 



( Footnote 3 concluded from preceding page) 



X. C. Whit field v. Rowland Lbr. Co. 152 X. C. 211, 67 S. E. 512. Gaskins v. 



Davis, 115 X. C. 85, 20 S. E. 188, 44 Am. St. Rep. 489, 25 L. R. A. 812. 



Ore. Oregon & C. R. R. v. Jackson, 21 Ore. 300, 28 Pac. 74 (Value added by 



labor cannot be trebled.) 



Pa. Krider v. Lafferty, 1 Whart. 302, 319 (1836) Willows. Chase v. Clear- 

 field Lbr. Co. 209 Pa. St. 422, 58 Atl. 813. 

 Tenn. Ensley v. Nashville, 2 Baxt. (Tenn.) 144. 



See Union Bank v. Rideau Lbr. Co., 4 Out. L. Rep. 721. 

 See 4 L. D. 1, Dep't Interior. 



1. Ala. Lowery v. Rowland, 104 Ala. 420 (1893). 



Minn. Carner v. Chi. St. P. M. & O. R. Co., 43 Minn. 375 (1S90) :. 



X. Y. Morrison v. American Tel. Co., 115 X. Y. Appl. Div. 741, 101 X. Y. Suppl. 



140. 

 Argotsinger v. Vines, 82 X T . Y. 308. 



2. Conn. Hoyt v. Southern X. E. Tel. Co. 60 Conn. 385, 22 At!. 957. 

 Kan. See Atchison v. Geiser (Kan.) 75 P. 68. 



X. Y. Donahue v. Keystone Gas. Co., 85 X T . Y. S. 47S. 

 Wis. Miller v. Xeale, 137 Wis. 426, 119 X. W. 94. 



Oilman v. Brown, 115 Wis. 1, 91 X. W. 227. 



But see Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Haynes, 1 Kan. App. 5S6, 12 I'ac. 259, 

 (Value annual crop of fruit too speculative as basis of damages.) 



3. Schlatcr v. Gay, 28 La. Ann. 340 (1876); Walruth v. Redfield, 11 Barb. (X. Y.) 



80S. (1851). 



4. Spink v. X. Y. X. II. & H. R. R. Co., 26 R. I. 115 (1904). 



5. Longfellow v. Quimby, 29 Me. 196, 48 Am. Dec. 525; Lee v. Brings, 99 Midi. 487. 



See Hayden v. Albee, 20 Minn. 159 (overflow,) Mackey et al v. Olssen, 12 Ore. 

 429. (road cost ) ; Griffen v. Colver, 16 X. Y. 4S9 (Sawmill case. ) 

 Kolb v. Bankhead, 18 Tex. 228. Tissot v. Groat South. Tel. & Tel. Co. 89 La. 

 Ann. 996. See Barry v. Edmunds, 116 L". S. 550 (1885); Day v. Wood worth 

 13 How. 362, 371 (1851). 



7. Colo. See Manitou & P. P. Ry. v. Harris, 45 Col. 1S5. 101 Par. 61 (19O9) (.Par- 

 tially burned.) 



Ga. C 'entral H. R. & B. Co. v. Murray 93 (Ja. 256. 20 S. K. 129 (Fire). 

 Iowa Burdick v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. S7 la. 3S4. 54 N. W. 139. Striegel 

 v. Moore 55 la. 88; See Leibor v. Chicago M. St. P. & (). Ry. S4 la. 97, 

 50 X. W. 547. (Difficulty of restoration because of shade considered.) 

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

 Mich. Bockes v. McAfee & Son Co. 165 Mich. 7, 130 X. W. 313. 

 Minn.^IIoye v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. 46 Minn. 269, 4S X. W. 1117. (Fire, 

 engine must have best spark arresters available.) 

 (Footnote 7 continued on next page) 



