CONVERSION BY AN INNOCENT TRESPASSER 89 



of the United States have not been consistent. The vari- 

 ance of the Federal decisions from what appears to be the 

 better holding evidently arose chiefly from a lack of clear 

 expression in the general discussion of the rule of damages 

 against an innocent trespasser presented in the case of 

 the Bolles Woodenware Company v. the United States, 

 which came before the United States Supreme Court at 

 the October term of 1882. 



In instructions of the General Land Office to its field 

 agents, which were dated March 1, 1883 (1 L. D. 695), and 

 issued directly after the publication of the supreme court 

 decision in the Woodenware case, the Department of the 

 Interior officially interpreted the dictum in that decision 

 regarding innocent trespass as holding that the measure of 

 damages in unintentional trespass was the value of the tim- 

 ber as it stood in the tree before being cut. This inter- 

 pretation necessarily ignored the significant fact that the 

 only measure of damage? specifically discussed as appli- 

 cable to the case then before the court, provided the evi- 

 dence had not shown the trespass to be a wilful one, was 

 the value of the trees after they were cut and at the place of 

 cutting. Nevertheless, the interpretation placed upon this 

 decision by the Department of the Interior was either fol- 

 lowed, or independently adopted, by the Departmet of 

 Justice, the Federal courts and many of the state courts. 

 The stumpage value has been held to be the measure of 

 damages in many decisions besides those given under note 

 1, page 86 above. x 



In recent years the executive departments and the 

 Federal courts have shown a disposition to interpret the 

 dictum in the Woodenware case as holding that the value 

 of the trees after severance should be the measure of dam- 

 ages for innocent trespass, especially in view of what the 



1. U. S. v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 67 Fed. 890 (1895); Gentry v. U. S., 101 Fed. 51 

 41 C. C. A. 185 (1900); U. 8. v. Teller, 106 'Fed. 447, 45 C. C. A. 416 

 (1901) ; U. S. v. Powers, 119 Fed. 562, 56 C. C. A. 128 (1903) Holding not clear; 

 U. S. v. McKee 128 Fed. 1002 (1904), Value of bark while on the trees. 

 .S*e American Union Tel. Co. v. Middleton, 80 N. Y. 408. 



