102 STATUTORY CIVIL LIABILITY FOR TIMBER TRESPASS 



actual possession. * It has been held that under these 

 statutes recovery could be had even where the plaintiff had 

 neither actual nor constructive possession; 2 but the 

 better holding is that the common law rule is not changed 

 by these statutes. 3 



Under most of these statutes the multiple damages or 

 penalty prescribed may be imposed even where the trees 

 cut have not been taken away, 4 and they embrace im- 

 mature trees. 5 



One who orders or induces another to violate one of 

 these statutes is liable for the damages or penalties pre- 

 scribed, 6 and the employer is liable for the acts of his 

 employee which are within the scope of his employment, 7 

 but not for acts committed without authority. 8 Like- 

 wise a partner is not liable for trespass by a copartner which 

 is done without the knowledge and consent of the former. 9 

 If one who purchases for value timber cut in violation of 

 such a statute had no part in the commission of the tres- 

 pass, he will not be held liable for the multiple damages or 

 penalties of the statute where he takes without notice 10 

 of the unlawful cutting, but there is conflict of authority as 



1. Long v. Cummings, 156 Ala. 577, 47 So. 109; White v. Farris, 124 Ala. 461, 27 So. 



259; Gra\lee v. Williams, 112 Ala. 539, 20 So. 952; Turner Coal Co. v. Glover, 

 101 Ala. 289, 13 So. 478; Allison v. Little, 93 Ala. 150, 9 So. 388; Am v. Mat- 

 thews, 39 Kans. 272, 18 Pac. 65; Sullivan v. Davis, 29 Kan. 28; Fitzpatrick v. 

 Gebhart, 7 Kan. 35; Cramer v. Grosaclose, 53 Mo. App. 648. 



2. Coppage v. Griffith, 40 S. W. 908, 19 Ky. L. Rep. 459; Achey v. Hull, 7 Mich. 423. 



3. Beatty v. Brown, 76 Ala. 267; Cf. Rogers v. Brooks, 99 Ala. 31, 11 So. 753; Newman 



v. Mountain Park Land Co., 85 Ark. 208, 107 S. W. 391, 122 Am. St. Rep. 27; 

 Brown v. Hartzell, 87 Mo. 564; Holladay-Klotz Land etc. Co. v. Moss Tie Co., 

 79 Mo. App. 543; Avitt v. Farrell, 68 Mo. App. 665; Cf. Austin; v. Huntsville 

 Coal etc. Co., 72 Mo. 535, 37 Am. Rep. 446; Halley v. Taylor, 77 Miss. 867, 28 

 So. 752; Gainings v. Miller, 76 Miss. 651, 24 So. 964; Ware v. Collins, 35 Miss. 

 223; Hubbel v. Rochester, 8 Cowen (N. Y.) 115 (1828, under statute Apr. 9, 1805 

 S. L. Ch. 94). 



4. Givens v. Kendrick, 15 Ala. 648; Keystone Lbr. etc. Co. v. McGrath (Miss. 1897), 



21 So. 301; Cf. Batchelder v. Kelly, 10 N. H. 436, 34 Am. Dec. 174, (cut by mis- 

 take). 



5. Clay v. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 70 Miss. 406, 11 So. 658. 



6. McCloskey v. Powell. 138 Pa. St. 383, 21 Atl. 148. (Afl'm in 123 Pa. St. 62, 16 Atl. 



420, 10 Am. St. Rep. 512). 



7. Van Siclen v. Jamaica Electric Light Co., 45 N. Y. App. Div. 1, 61 N. Y. Suppl. 



210, (Aft'm'd in 168 N. Y. 650, 61 N. E. 1135). Postal Tel. Co. v. Brantley 107 

 Ala. 683, 18 So. 321; See 115 Ala. 286, 22 So. 439. 



8. Therrell v. Ellis, 83 Miss. 494, 35 So. 826; McCleary v. Anthony, 54 Miss. 708; 



Batchelder v. Kelly, 10 N. H. 436, 34 Am. Dec. 174; But see. Gates v. Corn- 

 stock, 113 Mich. 127, 71 N. W. 515; Crisler v. Ott. 72 Miss. 166, 16 So. 416. 



9. Williams v. Hendricks, 115 Ala. 277, 22 So. 439, 67 Am. St. Rep. 32, 41 L. R. A. 



650. 

 10. O'Reilly v. Shadle, 33 Pa. St. 489. 



