88 CIVIL TIMBER TRESPASS 



Even these numerous decisions along the same line have 

 failed to definitely establish a standard as to the precise 

 condition into which the trees must be brought before the 

 rule as to the. severed value is to be applied. It would 

 seem that the change from realty to personalty should be 

 considered effected as soon as the trees are severed and 

 before they are cut into logs or cordwood or otherwise im- 

 proved, but it is probable that wherever such transformation 

 was concurrent with and formed an essential part of the 

 operation of felling the trespasser would not be held entitled 

 in most juridsictions to an allowance therefor, while if such 

 transformation were performed at a subsequent time and 

 as a distinct operation from the felling an allowance might 

 be made. There seems to be no sound reason why the 

 owner of the trees should gain through expenditures by 

 one who is guilty of no bad faith in severing them, and on 

 the other hand, as stated above, the standing value does 

 not afford full compensation for the injury. Though the 

 cost of severance may not afford a logical -or accurate measure 

 of the additional damage suffered, the application of this 

 rule would naturally have a salutary effect in restraining 

 one from negligence in the matter of cutting trees belong- 

 ing to another and at the same time satisfy the technical 

 requirements of the theory of the law as to the character 

 of property subject to conversion. 

 It will be noted that the holdings of the Federal court? 



(Footnote 1 concluded from preceding page) 



Miss. 626; Heard v. James, 49 Miss. 236. (Cases considered together 

 indicate severed value.) 



Neb. See, Carpenter v. Lingenfelter, 42 Neb. 728 (Grass.) 



N. H. Beede v. Lamprey, 64 N. H. 510, 15 Atl. 133, 10 Am. St. Rep. 426; Hitch- 

 cock v. Libby, 70 N. H. 399, 47 Atl. 269 (Loosely stated) ; But see Foote 

 v. Merrill, 54 N. H. 490, 20 Am. Rep, 151, and Cf. Adams v. Blodgett 

 47 N. H. 219 (Hemlock bark stripped.) 



N. J. Dawson v. Amey (Ch. 1888), 13 Atl. 667. 



N. Y. Firmin v. Finnin, 9 Hun 571. 



N. C. Gaskins v. Davis, 115 N. C. 85, 20 S. E. 188, 44 Am. St. Rep. 439, 25 

 L. R. A. 813; Bennett v. Thompson 35 N. C. (13 Ired.) 146. 



Wis. Tuttle v. Wilson, 52 Wis. 643, 9 N. W. 822; Wright v. Bolles Woodenware 

 Co., 50 Wise. 167, 6 N. W. 508; Single v. Schneider, 30 Wis. 574; Tyson 

 v. McGuinness 25 Wis. 656. 



U. S. United States v. St. Anthony R. R. Co., 192 U. S. 524; 24 S. Ct. 333, 

 (Afl'g 114 Fed. 722, which, however, awarded standing value, the sev- 

 ered value not having been shown.) Pine River Logging Co. v. United 

 States, 186 U. S. 279; Cf. same case, 89 Fed. 919. See, Bolles v. Wooden- 

 ware Co., v. U. S. 106 U. S. 432; Fisher v. Brown, 70 Fed. 570, 37 U. S. 

 App. 407. 



Can. Morton v. McDowell, 7 U. C. Q. B. 338. 



