DETERMINING DAMAGES AND INTEREST 105 



In most jurisdictions the jury find single damages 1 

 and if they fail to declare in the verdict that they consider 

 the plaintiff entitled to compensatory damages only, 

 the court must award the multiple damages provided in 

 the statute. 2 In Kansas it is the province of the jury to 

 assess the multiple damages, 3 while in Missouri the jury 

 find the fact of trespass only and the court determines 

 whether the evidence establishes a case within the terms 

 of the statute. 4 



91. Interest on Damages. Whenever damages are 

 recovered for trespass or conversion in connection with 

 the unlawful cutting of growing timber, interest may be 

 allowed from the date of the trespass or the time when the 

 conversion was complete until the date when judment 

 is entered. 5 In some jurisdictions interest will not be 

 allowed or treble damages. 6 but there are holdings to the 

 contrary 7 and the allowance of treble interest on single 

 damages has been refused- 8 



1. Black v. Mace, 66 Me. 49; George v. Rook, 7 Mo. 149; Withington v. Hilderbrand, 



1 Mo. 280; Nixon v. Stillwell, 52 Hun. (N. Y.) 353, 5 N. Y. Suppl. 248; Stark- 

 weather v. Quigley, 7 Hun. (N, Y.) 26; Marchand v. Haber, 16 Misc. (N. Y.) 

 322, 37 N. Y. Suppl. 952; Loewenbery v. Rosenthal, 18 Ore. 178, 22 Pac. 601; 

 Cf. Snelling v. Garfteld, 114 Mass. 443; Robbins v. Farwell, 193 Pa. 37, 44 Atl. 

 260; Clark v. Sargeant, 112 Pa. St. 16, 5 Atl. 44; Hughes v. Stevens, 36 Pa. 

 St. 320; Welsh v.Anthony, 16 Pa. St. 254; Henning v. Keiper, 37 Pa. Sup. Ct. 

 488. See King ^.Havens, 25 Wend. 419 (1841), shade tree; Newcomb, Super'r 

 v. Butterfleld, 8 Johnson 342 (1811). 



2. Yeamans v. Nichols, 81 N. Y. Suppl. 500; Humes v. Proctor, 73 Hun. (N. Y.) 



265, 26 N. Y. Suppl. 315 (Aff'd in 151 N. Y. 520, 45 N. E. 948); King v. Havens, 

 25 Wend. (N. Y.) 420; But See, Tait v. Thomas, 22 Minn. 537; Livingston v. 

 Platner, 1 Cow. (N. Y.) 175; Kulp v. Bird, 5 Pa. Cas. 541, 8 Atl. 618. 



3. Chicago etc. R. Co. v. Watkins, 43 Kan. 50, 22 Pac. 985; Cf. Byrne v. Haines. 



Minor (Ala.) 286; Agnew v. Albert Lewis Lbr. Co., 218 Pa. St. 505, 67 Atl. 779. 



4. Wood v. St. Louis etc. R. Co., 58 Mo. 109; Walther v. Warner, 26 Mo. 143; 



Chilton v. Missouri Lbr. etc. Co., 144 Mo. App. 315, 127 S. W. 941; Pitt v. 

 Daniel, 82 Mo. App. 168; Roucey v. Wood, 57 Mo. App. 650. 



5. Ala. Lowery v. Rowland, 104 Ala. 420, 16 So. 88. 



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



49. 

 Me. Longfellow v. Qutmby, 33 Me. 457; Cf. Longfellow v. Quimby, 29 Me. 196, 



48 Am. Dec. 525. 



Mich. Winchester v. Craig, 33 Mich. 205. 

 Minn. State v. Shevlin-Carpenter Co., 62 Minn. 99. 

 Pa. Dunbar Furnace Co. v. Fairchild et al. t 121 Pa. St. 563. 

 Wis. Weymouth v. Chi. & N. W. R. Co., 17 Wis. 550. 

 U. S. Pine River Logging Co. v. U. S., 186 U. S. 279, 22 S. Ct. 920, 40 L. Ed. 1164. 



6. McCloskey v. Powell, 138 Pa. St. 383, 21 Atl. 148; McCloskey v. Powell, 8 Pa. Co. 



Ct. 22. 



7. Gates v. Comstock, 113 Mich. 127, 71 N. W. 515. 



8. Dunbar Furnace Co. v. Fairchild, 121 Pa. St. 563, 15 Atl. 656. 



