CONVERSION BY AN INNOCENT TRESPASSER 87 



In a still larger number of jurisdictions it has been held 

 that the measure of damages in a case of innocent timber 

 trespass, in which there is no damage to the land beyond 

 the cutting of the trees, is the value of the severed trees at 

 the time and place of the felling. : 



(Footnote 1 concluded from preceding page) 



ingham 48 Tex. Civ. App. 105, 100 S. W. 907; Young v. Lumber Co 

 (Tex. Civ. App.) 100 S. W. 874; Messcr v. Walton 42 Tex. Civ. App. 488, 

 92 S. W. 1037: Tex. & X. O. R. Co. v. Jones 34 Tex. Civ. App. 94; 77 

 S. W. 955; Texas etc. R. Co. v. White, 25 Tex. Civ. App. 27S (Sand). 



Yt. Whiting v. Adams 00 Yt, 079, 30 Atl. 32. 44 Am. St. Rep. 875, 25 L. R. A. 

 598 (wilful, but indicates stumpage for innocent trespass); See Tilden v. 

 Johnson 52 Yt. G2X, 30 Am. Rep. 709 (Severed value, in trover for logs.) 



Wash. Chappell v. Puget Sound Reduction Co., 27 Wash. 03. 07 Pac. 391. 



W. Ya. Darnell v. Wilmoth 72 S. E. 1023 (1911). 



U. S. Morgan v. l~. S. 109 Fed. 242: Dartmouth College v. Int'l Paper Co. 132 

 Fed. 92; I*. S. v. Homestake Min. Co. 117 Fed. 481 ; U. S. v. Van Winkle, 

 113 Fed. 903, 53 C. C. A. 533; U. S. v. Eccles 111 Fed. 490; (and see 

 dicta in U. S. v. Baxter 40 Fed. 350, 353, and I". S. v. Williams, 18 Fed. 

 475, indicating stumpage value for innocent trespass). All of the Fed- 

 eral decisions here given were rendered subsequent to Woodenware Co. 

 v. U. S. 100 U. S. 432, 1 S. Ct. 398, 27 L. Ed. 230, (Oct. 1882) See G.L. 

 O. Regulations, March 1, 1883; 1 L. D. 095. 



Eng. See Eardley v. Granville, 3 Ch. D. 820, 45 L. J. Ch. (509, 34 L. T. Rep. X. S 

 009, 24 Wkly. Rep. 528; Fleming v. Simpson, L. J. K. B. O. S. 207, 2 M. 

 & R. 169; Hedley v. Scissons, 33 U. C. Q. B. 215; Martin v. Porter, 5 

 M. & W. 351; Morgan v. Powell, 3 Q. B. 278; Wood v. Morewood, 3 Q. 

 B., 440; Hilton v. Woods, L. R. 4 Eq. 432; Jegon v. Vivian, L. R. Ch. 

 App. 742. 



Text Writers: Sedgwick on Damages, 9th. Ed. Pub. Baker. Voorhis & Co. X. Y., 

 1912, Vol. 3 |). 1927, (Stumpage value). 

 -Sutherland on Damages, 3d Ed. Pub. Callaghan & Co. Chicago, 1904, Vol. 



4, ]). 3293, (Severed value). 



1. Ala. Zimmerman Mfg. Co. v. Dunn, 151 Ala. 435, 44 So. 533: Ivy Co. v. Ala- 

 bama Co., 135 Ala. 579, 33 So. 547, 93 Am. St. Rep. 40: White v. Yawkey, 

 10X Ala. 270. 19 So. 360, 54 Am. St. Rep. 159, 32 L. R. A. 199: Ivey v. 

 McQueen, 17 Ala. 40S. 



Cal. Sampson v. Hammond, -1 Cal. 1S4. 



Conn. Eldridge v. Gorman, 77 Conn. 09!), 00 All. (543: See Baldwin v. Porter, 12 

 Conn. 1st. 



Fla. Peacock v. Feast er. 40 So. 74; Wright v. Skinner, 34 Fla. 453, 10 So. 335. 



Ga, Coody v. Gress Lbr. Co. S2 Ga. 793, 10 S. E. 218; Smith v. Guilder, 22 Ga. 

 353 (Specifically stated.) 



Ind. Ellis v. Wire. 33 Ind. 127, 5 Am. Rep. IS!) ^Corn). 



Kan. Arn. v. Matthews, 3!) Kan. 272. IS Pac. 05 (Value where cut or at nearest 

 market.) 



Ky. See Dennis v. Strunk, 108 S. W. 957. 32 Ky. L. Rep. 1230. 



La. Ball Lbr. Co. v. Simms Lbr. Co., 121 La. 027, 10 So. 071, IS L. R. A. X. S 

 244; St. Paul v. Louisiana Cypress Lbr. Co., 110 La. 5S5, 10 So. 900 

 Guarantee Trust etc. Co. v. Drew Inv. Co.. 107 La. 251. 31 So. 730 

 Garden- v. Blanton, 35 La. Ann. SI 1 ; Schlater v. Gay, 2S La. Ann. 340 

 Yarboroiigh v. Nettles, 7 La. Ann. 110: Kastman v. Harris, I La. Ann. 

 193: Shepard v. Young. 2 La, Ann. 23S: Watterson v. .lelclie, 7 Rob. 20. 



Me. Moody v. Whitney, 3S Me. 171. (il Am. Dec. 239: dishing v. Longfellow, 

 20 Me. 300. 



Md. Peters v. Tilghman, 111 Md. 227. 73 Atl. 720: lilaen Co. v. McCullough, 

 59 Md. 403, 43 Am. Rep. 500; Franklin Coal Co. v. McMillan. 49 Md. 

 549, 33 Am. Rep. 280. 



Mass. Cutts v. Spring, 15 Mass. 135 ("Value of trees," indefinite). 



Miss. Bond v. Griflln, 74 Miss. 5!)!), 22 So. 1S7; Illinois C. R. Co. v. Le Blanc, 74 

 (Footnote 1 continued on next page) 



