86 CIVIL TIMBER TRESPASS 



authority has resulted. The rules applicable to fruit and 

 shade trees are better suited to cases involving the destruc- 

 tion of immature trees of timber species, for in such cases 

 the trees have no substantial value as chattels after their 

 severance, and the gist of the unlawful act is an injury to the 

 land and not a conversion of chattels which have been sev- 

 ered from the land. 



With the development of the art of forestry in America 

 and the acceptance of the view that a forest is a crop, 

 a new and distinct viewpoint regarding the measure of 

 damages for the premature cutting or destruction of 

 timber trees will undoubtedly be adopted. It is probable 

 that the rules of law as to the damage allowable for the 

 unlawful cutting of mature timber trees will also be modified. 

 However, it is necessary for us to obtain, if possible, the 

 most satisfactory rule that at present has the sanction of 

 judicial authority. 



There have been many decisions which have directly an- 

 nounced or have approved by dicta the rule that a tres- 

 passer who cuts growing trees under an honest mistake or 

 in reliance upon a bona fide claim of right is liable only for 

 the value of the trees while standing. 1 



Ark. Of. Eaton v. Langley, 65 Ark. 448. 



Mich. See citations under note 2, page 92. 



Minn. State v. Clarke, 109 Minn. 123, 123 N. W. 54; Hasty v. Bonness, 86 X. W. 



896; Mississippi River Logging Co. v. Page et al., 68 Minn. 269. 71 N. 



W. 4; State v. Shevlin-Carpenter Co. 62 Minn. 99, 64 X. W. 81; King v. 



Merriman, 38 Minn. 47, 35 X. W. 570; Whitney v. Huntington, 37 Minn. 



197, 33 X. W. 561; Hinman v. Heyderstadt, 32 Minn. 250, 20 X. W. 155 



(Grass). [Distinguishing Xesbitt v. St. Paul Lumber Co. 21 Minn. 



491 (wilful)]. 

 Mo. Missouri Sligo Furnace Co. v. Holart-Lee Tie Co. (Mo. App. 1911) 134 



S. W. 585; Hosli v. Yokel 57 Mo. App. 622 (Grass). See Mueller v. St. 



Louis etc. R. R. Co. 31 Mo. 262 (value of soil taken.) 

 N. Y. Fergusen v. Buckell, 101 X. Y. App. Div. 213, 91 X. Y. Suppl. 724; 



Clark v. Holdridge 12 X. Y. App. Div. 613, 43 X. Y. Suppl. 115 (1897). 



(Misinterprets Woodenware Co. v. TJ. S. 106 U. S. 432; contra 



Finnin v. Firmin, 9 Hun 571. 

 Ohio. Lake Shore etc. R. Co. v. Hutchins 32 O. St. 571, 30 Am. Dec. 629; Hulett 



v. Fairbanks, 1 O. Cir. Ct. 155, 1 O. Cir. Dec. 89. 

 Ore. Oregon & California R. R. v. Jackson, 21 Ore. 360, 28 Pac. 74. 

 Pa. Coxe v. England, 65 Pa. St. 212 (1870); Herdie v. Young 55 Pa. St. 176; 



Forsyth v.. "Wells, 41 Pa. St. 291, 80 Am. Dec. 617. Cf. Sanderson v. 



Haverstick, 8 Pa. St. 294; See Dunbar Furnace Co. v. Fairchild, 121 Pa. 



St. 563, 15 Atl. 656. 



S. C. Lewis v. Virginia-Carolina Chem. Co. 69 S. C. 364, 48 S. E. 280. 

 Tenn. Holt v. Hayes, 110 Tenn. 42, 73 S. W. 11; Ross v. Scott 83 Tenn. (15 Lea) 



479; See Dougherty v. Chestnutt 86 Tenn. 1, 5 S. W. 444 (Marble in situ). 

 Tex. Louis Werner Stave Co. v. Pickering (Tex. Cir. App. 1909) 119 S. W. 333; 



Callen v. Collins (Tex. Civ. App. 1909) 120 S. W. 546; Pettit v. Froth- 

 ( Footnote 1 continued on next page) 



