78 CIVIL TIMBER TRESPASS 



76. Choice of Actions in Timber Trespass Cases. 



If trees are severed and carried away by a trespasser or 

 by another who has no lawful right to cut them the owner 

 of the land or of the trees may either bring an action in 

 trespass quare dausum fregit, 1 trespass de bonis asportatis 

 for the damage done in the carrying away of the severed 

 trees, 2 an action in replevin for the specific recovery of 

 the trees taken, or their value, 3 an action in trover for 

 the value of the property converted, 4 or, waiving the 

 tort, he may bring an action of implied assumpsit for the 

 value 5 or one for money had and received for his use. 6 

 He may also obtain possession by recapture of the prop- 

 erty and, even though he be liable for a breach of the 

 peace, his title will be good. 7 If the owner is not in pos- 

 session of the land he may enter and take possession of 

 the timber, 8 whether it was cut by a trespasser or by one 

 in possession of the land; or he may bring an action on the 

 case in the nature of waste for the injury done. 9 If 

 timber trees are wrongfully severed by a tenant for years 

 or for life, the lessor, reversioner or remainderman is en- 

 titled to the trees and may maintain replevin, 10 trover, u 



(Footnote 7* concluded from preceding page) 

 Neb. Alberts v. Husenetter 77 Neb. 699, 110 N. W. 657 (1906). 

 N. C. Williams v. Elm City Lbr. Co., 70 S. E. 631. 



Pa. Com. v. LaBar, 32 Pa. Super. Ct. 228 (Act Feb. 25, 1911, S. L. 11) 

 U. S. U. S. v. Chi., Mil. & St. P. Ry. Co., 207 Fed. 164, (Aff'd in 218 Fed. 288.) 

 Damages have been allowed for the leaving of brush on land: Halsted v 

 Sigler, 35 Ind. App. 419, 74 N. E. 257; Chase v. Clearfleld Lbr. Co. 209 

 Pa. 422, 58 Atl. 813; Contra. Nelson v. Big Blackfoot Min. Co., 17 Mont 

 553, 44 Pac. 81 (The land to be cleared for homestead purposes). 



1. Milltown Lumber Co. v. Carter, 5 Ga. App. 344, 63 S. E. 270. 



2. Taylor v. Burt etc. Lbr. Co., 109 S. W. 348, 33 Ky. L. Rep. 199; Dennis v. Strunk, 



108 S. W. 957, 32 Ky L. Rep. 1230. 



3. Kimball v. Lohmas, 31 Cal. 154; Halleck v. Mixer, 16 Cal. 574; Sanborn v. Frank- 



lin County Lbr. Co., 55 Fla. 389, 46 So. 85; Anderson v. Hopler, 34 111. 436, 85 

 Am. Dec. 318; Richardson v. York, 14 Me. 216; Washburn v. Cutter, 17 Minn. 

 361; Brewer v. Fleming, 51 Pa. St. 102; Coomalt v. Stanley, 3 Pa. L. J. Rep 

 389; Millar v. Humphries, 2 A. K. Marsh (Ky.) 446. 



4. Whidden v. Seelye, 40 Me. 247, 63 Am. Dec. 661; Moody v. Whitney, 34 Me. 563. 



5. Milltown Lbr. Co. v. Carter, 5 Ga. App. 344, 63 S. E. 270. 



6. Wall v. Williams, 91 N. C. 477. 



7. Trustees Dartmouth College v. Intn'l Paper Co., 132 Fed. 92, 94. 



8. Clark v. Holden, 7 Gray (Mass.) 8, 66 Am. Dec. 450. 



9. Wall v. Williams, 91 N. C. 477. 



10. Richardson v. York, 14 Me. 216; Warren County v. Cans, 80 Miss. 76, 31 So. 539; 

 See McNally v. Connolly, 70 Cal. 3, 11 Pac. 320; and Cases cited 13 Am. & Eng. 



Enc. Law, (2d Ed.) 680, Note. 4. 



11. Brooks v. Rogers, 101 Ala. Ill, 13 So. 386; Warren County v. Gans, 80 Miss. 76; 



Schermerhorn v. Buell, 4 Den. (N. Y.) 422. 



