DEFENSES TO TRESPASS ACTION 103 



to whether such purchaser will be liable if he takes with 

 notice of the unlawful cutting. 1 



89. Defenses to Statutory Damages. If the cutting 

 is done with the consent of the owner, 2 is within one of 

 the exceptions of the statute, 3 or is done with authority 

 of law, 4 the trespasser will not be liable to the multiple 

 damages or penalties. Possession without title under a 

 contract of purchase, 5 proof that the cutting benefited 

 the land, 6 or evidence that the cutting was necessary to 

 protect defendant's adjoining land 7 do not constitute de- 

 fenses to an action under one of these statutes, and payment 

 for damage to one tenant in common does not discharge 

 the liability to another. 8 



While the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show 

 that a trespass has actually been committed on land to 

 which he has title, 9 and that it was wilful 10 and done 

 without consent or license; n when these facts are estab- 

 lished the burden of justification of the act falls upon the 

 defendant. 12 Thus the denfedant may be required to 

 show that the trespass was committed by mistake, 13 that 

 he used reasonable care, 14 that he had probable cause for 



1. Not Liable Alabama State Land Co. v. Reed, 99 Ala. 19, 10 So. 238. 



Liable Cans v. Nimmons, 92 Mo. App. 66; Holladay-Klotz Land etc. Co. v. MOM 

 Tie Co., 79 Mo. App. 543. 



2. Jernigan v. Clark, 134 Ala. 313, 32 So. 686; Werner v. Flies, 91 Iowa 146, 59 N. W. 



18. 



3. Clark v. Field, 42 Mich. 342, 4 N. W. 19; Russell v. Myers, 32 Mich. 520; Wallace 



v. Finch, 24 Mich. 255; Courtney v. Smylie, Walk. Miss. 497; Pitt V Daniel, 82 

 Mo. App. 168; Cramer v. Groseclose, 53 Mo. App. 648. 



4. Farrow v. Nashville, etc. R. Co., 109 Ala. 448, 20 So. 303; Cox v. St. Louis etc. R. 



Co., Ill Mo. App. 394, 85 S. W. 989; Van Siclen v. Jamaica Electric Light Co., 

 45 N. Y. App. Div. 1, 61 N. Y. Suppl. 210 (Afl'd in 168 N. Y. 650, 61 N. E. 

 1135). 



5. Van Deusen v. Young, 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 9; But see, Taylor v. Lyon Lbr. Co., 13 Pa. 



Co. Ct. 235. 



6. Van Deusen v. Young, 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 9 (Reversed on other groungs in 29 N. Y. 



9). 



7. Walker v. Davis, 83 Mo. App. 374. 



8. Wagoner v. Silva, 139 Cal. 559, 73 Pac. 433. 



9. Brasher v. Shelby Iron Co., 144 Ala. 629, 40 So. 80. 



10. Shelby Iron Co. v. Ridley, 135 Ala. 513, 33 So. 331; Wilson v. Gunning, 80 Iowa 



331, 45 N. W. 920. 



11. Davis v. Arnold 143 Ala. 228, 39 So. 141 ; Farrow v. Nashville etc. R. Co., 109 Ala. 



448, 20 So. 303; Rogers v. Brooks, 105 Ala. 549. 17 So. 97; Padman v. Rhodes, 

 126 Mich. 434, 85 N. W. 1130. 



12. Ladd v. Shattock, 90 Ala. 134, 7 So. 764; Chilton v. Missouri Lbr. etc. Co., 144 



Mo. App. 315, 127 S. W. 941; Farrow v. Nashville etc. R. Co., 109 Ala. 448,20 

 So. 303. 



13. Davis v. Cotey, 70 Vt. 120, 39 Atl. 628. 



14. Keirn v. Warfleld, 60 Miss. 799. 



