INNOCENT PURCHASER FROM INNOCENT TRESPASSER 93 



from the innocent trespasser is the value of the trees while 

 standing, the innocent purchaser will be held for such value; 

 and in jurisdictions where the measure of damages is the 

 value of the trees immediately after severance, or some diff- 

 erent standard, the innocent purchaser must respond in 

 damages in the amount there allowed against the one who 

 severs growing trees accidentally or under claim of title. 



83. The Liability of a Wilful Trespasser or of his 

 Vendee with Notice. If trees are cut wilfully, i. e., with a 

 knowledge that the cutting was unlawful or with gross 

 negligence or wanton recklessness, the measure of damages 

 in an action for conversion, in nearly all jurisdictions, will 

 be the value at the time of demand or the bringing of the 

 suit, if the product of the trees is in the hands of the original 

 trespasser or one who has purchased from him with notice of 

 the unlawful cutting of the trees. The original trespasser 

 or the purchaser with notice will be entitled to no allowance 

 for what has been expended upon such product. : 



Ark. Nicklase v. Morrison, 56 Ark. 553, 20 S. W. 414. 



Colo. Omaha & G. 8. & R. Co. v. Tabor, 13 Colo. 41. 



Ga. Parker v. Waycross etc. R. Co., 81 Ga. 387. 



Ind. Ellis v. Wire, 33 Ind. 127, 5 Am. Rep. 189; See Emerson v. Seller, 105 Ind. 



266, 4 N. E. 854; Ayers v, Hobbs, 41 Ind. App. 576, 84 N. E. 554. 

 Iowa. Stuart v. Phelps, 39 la. 14, 18 Am. Rep. 39 (Growing crop). 

 Ky. Kentucky Stave Co. v. Page (Ky. 1910), 125 S. W. 170 (Act of Agent.); 

 Jones Lbr. Co. v. Gatliff, 82 S. W. 295, 26 Ky. L. Rep. 616; Bergen v. 

 Sears 67 S. W. 1002, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 80. 

 La. Guarantee Trust & Safe Dep. Co. v. Drew Inv. Co., 107 La. 250 (1902) 



(Mistake as to law). Guarantee T. & S. D. Co. v. Holsell, 107 La. 745, 31 



So. 999. 

 Mich. Moret v. Mason, 106 Mich. 340, 64 N. W. 193; Empire Mfg. Co. v. Stuart, 



46 Mich. 485; Grant v. Smith, 26 Mich. 201; Final v. Backus, 18 Mich. 



218; Symes v. Oliver, 13 Mich. 9. 

 Minn. Hastay v. Bonness, 84 Minn. 120, 86 N. W. 896; Mississippi River Logging 



Co. v. Page, 68 Minn. 269, 71 N. W. 4; Shepard v. Pettit, 30 Minn. 481. 

 Miss. Heard v. James, 49 Miss. 236. 



Mo. Sligo Furnace Co. v. Holart-Lee Tie Co.. 134 S. W. 585 (Mo. App.) 

 N. Y. Stanton v. Pritchard, 4 Hun 266; Rice v. Hollenbeck, 19 Barb. 664; Baker 



v. Wheeler, 8 Wend. 505, 24 Am. Dec. 66; Brown v. Sax, 7 Cow. 95. 

 Nev. Ward v. Carson River Wood Co., 13 Nev. 44. 

 Tenn. Holt v. Hayes, 110 Tenn. 42, 73 S. W. 111. 

 Tex. Bayle v. Norris, (Tex. Civ. App.) 134 S. W. 767; Emporia Lbr. Co. v. 



League (Tex Civ. App.) 105 S. W. 1167; Ripy v. Less, 55 Tex. Civ. App. 



492, 118 S. W. 1084; Cummings v. Masterton, 42 Tex. Civ. App. 549, 



93 S. W. 500. Brown v. Pope. 27 Tex. Civ. App. 225, 65 S. W. 42; Ry. 



Co. v. Starr, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 353, 55 S. W. 393. 

 Vt. Whiting v. Adams, 66 Vt. 679, 30 Atl. 32, 44 Am. St. Rep. 875, 25 L. R. A. 



598 (1894). 



Wis. Underwood v. Paine Lbr. Co., 79 Wis. 592, 48 N. W. 673; Brown v. Bos- 

 worth, 58 Wis. 379, 17 N. W. 241. 



U S. Pine River Logging Co. v. U. S., 186 U. S. 279, 22 S. Ct. 920, 40 L. Ed. 

 (Footnote 1 continued on next page) 



