80 CIVIL TIMBER TRESPASS 



rees as long as indentification is possible and regain possession 

 of railroad ties, l rails and posts, 2 lumber, 3 staves, 4 

 shingles, 5 cordwood, 6 charcoal, 7 or other goods and 

 articles manufactured from the trees. 8 However, in a 

 Michigan case in which the timber taken had been mani- 

 factured into hoops which had a value twenty-seven times 

 the value of the timber as originally converted, it was held 

 that the amount expended upon the timber by the defend- 

 ant was so much greater than the value of the timber 

 taken as to give the defendant title by accession, and the 

 plaintiff was given only the value of the timber originally 

 taken. 9 This was evidently a border line case. Re- 

 plevin cannot be maintained if the land from which the trees 

 were cut was in the adverse possession of the defendant or 

 of a third party. 10 Where through a valid sale growing 

 trees have been constructively separated from the land and 

 become chattels in contemplation of law the purchaser of 

 the trees may maintain replevin against a subsequent pur- 

 chaser of the land who cuts and removes the trees n or 

 against one who removes the trees under claim of a purchase 

 of them subsequent to the first purchase. 12 



If it be established by the owner that the trees were cut 

 not only unlawfully but wilfully i. e., deliberately 13 by 

 one who knew u the trees did not belong to him the 



1. Eaton v. Langley, 65 Ark. 448; Stotts v. Brookfleld, 55 Ark. 307, 18 S. W. 179; 



McKinnis v. Little Rock etc. R. Co., 44 Ark. 210; Strubbee v. Cincinnati R. 

 Co., 78 Ky. 481, 39 Am. Rep. 251. 



2. Snyder v. Vaux, 2 Rawle (Pa.) 423, 21 Am. Dec. 466; But See, Ricketts v. Dorrell, 



55 Ind. 470 (1876). 



3. Davis v. Easley, 13 111. 192; Wingate v. Smith, 20 Me. 287; Brown v. Sax, 7 Cow. 



(N. Y.) 95. 



4. Heard v. James, 49 Miss. 236. 



5. Belts v. Lee, 5 Johns (N. Y.) 348, 4 Am. Dec. 368; Chandler v. Kelson, 9 Johns 



(N. Y.) 362; Rice v. Hollenbeck, 19 Barb. (N. Y.) 664. 



6. Brock v. Smith, 14 Ark. 431 ; Isle Royal Min. Co. v. Hertin, 37 Mich. 332, 26 Am. 



Rep. 550. 



7. Riddle v. Driver, 12 Ala. 590; Curtis v. Groat, 6 Johns. (N. Y.) 168, 5 Am. Dec. 



204. 



8. See Austin v. Baker, F. Moore 17, 20; Silsbury v. McCoon, 3 N. Y. 379, 53 Am. 



Dec. 307; Murphy v. Sioux City etc., R. Co. 55 la. 473, 8 N. W. 320, 39 Am. 

 Rep. 175; Eaton v. Monroe, 52 Me. 63; Ryder v. Hathaway, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 

 298; Barry v. Brune 8 Hun. 395; Cf. Harding v. Coburn, 12 Mete. 333, 46 Am. 

 Dec. 680. 



9. Whetherbee v. Green, 22 Mich. 311, 7 Am. Rep. 653. 



10. Anderson v. Hapler, 34 111. 436, 85 Am. Dec. 318; Clarke v. Hyde, 25 Wash. 661. 



66 Pac. 46. 



11. Warren v. Leland, 2 Barb. (N. Y.) 613. 



12. See Goodrich v. Hathaway, 1 Vt. 485; McCoy v. Herbert, 9 Leigh (Va.) 548 (1838) . 



13. People v. Sheldon, 68 Cal. 434. 



14. Wong v. Astoria, 13 Ore. 538. 



