92 CIVIL TIMBER TRESPASS 



81 The Rule in Michigan Regarding Innocent 

 Timber Trespass. Although the language in some deci- 

 sions in that state has indicated that the measure of dama- 

 ges in Michigan would be the value of the trees while stand- 

 ing, 1 the rule there undoubtedly is their value standing 

 plus a reasonable profit. 2 If the formal requirement of 

 the common law, that things attached to realty must be 

 severed before they can be converted, is ignored and an 

 attempt is made to arrive at the compensation to which 

 the plaintiff is justly entitled for the wrongful taking on the 

 ground that he had a right to cut and market his own trees, 

 the Michigan rule is apparently the most satisfactory one. 

 It involves the difficult task of determining the profit real- 

 ized by the trespasser, or what a reasonable profit would be; 

 and yet this profit would ordinarily be proved by the same 

 kind of evidence as the value of the trees while standing 

 and would be as susceptible to a reasonable certainty of 

 determinaticm. 



82. The Liability of an Innocent Purchaser from 

 an Unintentional Trespasser. If growing trees are cut 

 by an unintentional trespasser, or under a bona fide claim 

 of right, the innocent purchaser of the logs or other products 

 manufactured from the trees will be liable only for the 

 value at the time of the original wrongful taking. 3 Such 

 purchaser takes the property subject to the identical claims 

 which could have been enforced against the trespasser. He 

 will be liable to the same extent as his vendor. Thus in 

 jurisdictions where the measure of damages recoverable 



1. Michigan Land etc. Co. v. Deer Lake Co., 60 Mich. 143, 27 N. W. 10, 1 Am. St. 



Rep. 491; Wood v. Elliott, 51 .Mich. 320, 16 N. W. 666. 



2. Anderson v. Besser, 131 Mich. 481, 91 N. W. 737; Ayres v. Hubbard, 71 Mich. 



594. 40 N. W. 10: 57 Mich. 322, 23 N. W. 829, 58 Am. Rep. 361; Skeels v. Star- 

 rett, 57 Mich. 350, 24 N. W. 98; Winchester v. Craig, 33 Mich. 205; Greeley v. 

 Stilson, 27 Mich, 152; See, Busch v. Fisher, 89 Mich. 200; Gates v. Rifle Boom 

 Co., 70 Mich. 309, 38 N. W. 245, Cf. Eaton v. Langley. 65 Ark. 448. 



3. Birmingham Mineral R. Co. v. Tenn. Coal Co., 127 Ala. 137, 28 So. 679) White v. 



Yawkey, 108 Ala. 270, 19 So. 360; Lake Shore etc. R. Co. v. Hutchins, 37 Ohio 

 St. 282; Texas etc. R. Co. v. Jones, 34 Tex. Civ. App. 94, 77 S. W. 955; Holies 

 Woodenware Co. v. United States, 106 U. S. 432; See, Barnes v. Weikel Chair 

 Co., 89 S. W. 222, 28 Ky. L. Rep. 315. 



Stone v. U. S., 167 U. S. 178, 17 S. Ct. 778, 42 L. Ed. 127 (Aff'g 64 Fed. 667, 12 

 C. C. A. 451); Anderson v. U.S.. 152 Fed. 87, 81 C. C. A., 311 ;U. S. v. Norris 

 41 Fed. 424. Cf. U. S. v. Price, 109 Fed. 239, 48 C. C. A. 331. (Title of U. S. 

 not divested by saile, subsequent to demand by U. S. Agent, to a R. R. Co. 

 which could have taken the timber standing. 



