94 . CIVIL TIMBER TRESPASS 



It has been held that if the negligence which led to the tres- 

 pass was not such as to indicate wantonness or recklenssss, 

 the defendant should be given an allowance for expendi- 

 tures upon the trees after their severance. 1 



84. The Liability of an Innocent Purchaser from 

 a Wilful Trespasser. If the product of the trees has 

 come into the hands of an innocent purchaser the measure 

 of damages against such person in most jurisdictions will 

 be the value at the time that he converted the product to 

 his use, and this will ordinarily be the price which he paid. - 

 Some of the earlier cases held that the plaintiff was entitled 

 to the value of the products where found even though they 

 were in the hands of an innocent purchaser, 3 but this 

 is not in accord with the weight of authority. 



85. Exemplary Damages May be Allowed in Cases 

 of Wilful Trespass. Where it is alleged that a trespass is 

 wilful evidence as to the motive of the trespasser is admissi- 



(Footnote 1 concluded from preceding page) 



1164; Cf. same case, 89 Fed. 907, 919; Bolles Woodenware Co. v. U. S.. 

 106 U. 8. 432, 1 S. Ct. 398, 27 L. Ed. 230; Cunningham v. Metropolitan 

 Lbr. Co. 110 Fed. 332, 49 C. C. A. 72; U. S. v. Baxter, 46 Fed. 350; U. S. 

 v. Ordway, 30 Fed. 30; U. S. v. Williams, 18 Fed. 475, 9 Sawy. 374; U. S. 

 v. Mills, 9 Fed. 684: See Fisher v. Brown, 70 Fed. 570, 37 U. S. App. 407, 

 and Bunker Hill & Sullivan Min. & Con. Co. v. U. S. 226 U. S. 548. 

 aflfm. 178 Fed. 914. 



Gan. Union Bank v. Rideau Lbr. Co., 4 Ont. L. Rep. 721; Cf. 3 Ont. L. Rep. 

 269; Smith v. Baechler, 18 Ont. 293. 



1. Trustees Dartmouth College v. Int'l Paper Co. 132 Fed. 99. 



2. Ark. Central Coal and Coke Co. v. John Henry Shoe Co., 69 Ark. 302, 63 S. W. 



49. 



Ga. ' Milltown Lbr. Co. v. Carter, 5 Ga. App. 344, 63 S. E. 270. 

 Ky. Moss Tie Co. v. Myers (1909 Ky.) 116 S. W. 255; Jones Lbr. Co. v. Gatliff. 



82 S. W. 295, 26 Ky. L. Rep. 616. 

 Mass. Glaspy v. Cabot, 135 Mass. 435. 

 Me. Powers v. Tilley, 87 Me. 34, 32 Atl. 714, 47 Am. St. Rep. 304; See, Wing v. 



Milliken, 91 Me. 387, 40 Atl. 138, 64 Am. St. Rep. 238. 

 Mich. Tuttle v. White, 46 Mich. 485, 9 N. W. 528, 41 Am. Rep. 175; Salt marsh v. 



Chi. & G. T. Ry. 122 Mich. 103, 80 X. W. 981. 

 Minn. Hoxsie v. Empire Lbr. Co., 41 Minn. 548, 43 N. W. 476; Nesbitt v. St. 



Paul Lbr. Co., 21 Minn. 491. 



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

 N. Y. Silsbury v. McCoon. 3 N. Y. 379, 53 Am. Dec. 307; Cf. Wallingford v. 



Riser, 191 N. Y. 392, 84 N. E. 295, 123 Am. St. Rep. 600, 55 L. R. A. N. 



S. 1126 (Afl'm'd 110 N. Y. App. Div. 503, 96 N. Y. Suppl. 981). 

 Tenn, Godwin v. Taenzer, 122 Tenn. 101, 119, S. W. 1133: See McGill v. Chil- 



house Lbr. Co., Ill Tenn. 552. 82 S. W. 210. 



Tex. Missouri Kan. & Tex. Ry. Co. v. Starr (Tex. Civ. App) 55 S. W. 393. 

 Vt. Hassam v. Safford Lbr. Co., 82 Vt. 444, 74 Atl. 197. 

 U. S. Bolles Wooden Ware Co. v. U. S., 106 U. S. 432, 27 L. Ed. 230; Potter v. 



U. S., 122 Fed. 49, 58 C. C. A. 231; Stone v. U. S., 64 Fed. 667; U. S. v. 



Perkins et al, 44 Fed. 670. 



See 47 Cent. Dig. Tit. "Trover and Conv., Sec. 270. 

 3. Ely v. United States, 4 Dillon 464 (C. C. 8th Dist.) 



