106 STATUTORY CIVIL LIABILITY FOR TIMBER TRESPASS 



92. Timber cut from Federal and State Lands. 



The title to timber that is cut in violation of statute from 

 public lands of the United States remains in the United 

 States, l and the title to timber unlawfully cut from the 

 public lands of a state remains in the state 2 after severance. 

 One who purchases such timber which has been cut wilfully, 

 either with or without* notice of the wrongful cutting, ac- 

 quires no better title than his vendor. 3 Timber cut wil- 

 fully can be pursued so long as it can be identified, and 

 recovered in replevin wherever taken, whether in the hands 

 of the original trespasser or of a purchaser from him. 4 

 Although there have been decisions to the effect that the 

 United States was dependent upon the action of replevin 

 for the specific recovery of timber unlawfully cut from 

 public lands, 5 the weight of judicial authority seems to 

 sustain the right of the United States to seize timber un- 

 lawfully cut wherever it can be found, if capable of identi- 

 fication. 6 For many years this has been the practice 

 of the timber agents employed in the General Land Office 

 under specific direction of the Department of the Interior, 7 



1. Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Lewis, 162 U. S. 366, 16 S. Ct. 831, 40 L. Ed. 1002 



(Revs'g 51 Fed. 658, 2 C. C. A. 446); Northern Pac. R. v. Paine, 119 U. S. 561. 

 30 L. Ed. 513; Woodenware Co. v. U. S. 106 U. S. 432, 27 L. Ed. 230; U. S. v. 

 Cook, 19 Wall (U. S.) 591, 22 L. Ed. 210; U. S. v. Bitter Root Dev. Co., 133 

 Fed. 274 (Afl'd in 200 U. S. 451); English v. U.S. 116 Fed. 625, 54 C. C. A. 81 

 (Aflm'g 107 Fed. 867) ; U. S. v. Price, 109 Fed. 239, 48 C. C. A. 331 ; U. S. v. 

 Pine Rive- Logging Co. 78 Fed, 319, 24 C. C. A. 101; U. S. v. Steenerson, 50 

 Fed. 504, 1 C. C. A. 552: U. S. v. Perkins, 44 Fed. 670; Norris v. U. S. 44 Fed. 

 735; Ely v. U. S. 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,581, 4 Dill 464; Spencer v. U. S.. 10 Ct. Cl. 

 255.; 



But see U. S. v. Loughrey, 1 2 U. S. 206, 19 S. Ct. 153, 43 L. Ed. 420 (Affm'g 71 

 Fed. 921, 18 C. C. A. 391); Teller v. U. S., 117 Fed. 577, 54 C. C. A. 349; U. S. v. 

 Teller, 106 Fed. 447, 45 C. C. A. 416; U. S. v. Scott, 38 Fed. 393. 



2. Hutchins v. King, 68 U. S. 53; 17 L. Ed. 544; Schulenberg v. Harriman, 21 Wall 



(U. S.) 44, 22 L. Ed. 551 (Affm'g 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,486, 2 Dill. 398; Ruber v. 

 Hyde, 138 Mich. 101, 101 N. W. 61 ; Russell v. Myers 32 Mich. 522. 

 See also State v. Rat. Portage Lbr. Co. (Minn. 1908) 115 N. W. 162; Rogers v. 

 Bates, 1 Mich. N. P. 93; State v. School etc. Land Com'r's, 19 Wis. 237. 



3. Anderson v. U. S., 152 Fed. 87, 81 C. C. A. 311; Pine River Logging Co. v. U. S., 



186 U. S. 279; Cf. 89 Fed 919; Woodenware Co. v. U. S. 106 Fed. 432; U. S. v. 

 Norris, 41 Fed. 424. But e Stone v. U. S., 167 U. S. 178, 17 S. Ct. 778, 42 

 L. Ed. 127 (Affm'g 64 Fed. 667, 12 C. C. A. 451; U. S. v. Williams, 18 Fed. 478; 

 The Timber Cases. 11 Fed. 81. 



4. Pine River Logging Co. v. U. S., 186 U. S., 279; Schulenberg v. Harriman, 21 Wall 



(U. S.) 44, 22 L. Ed. 551; B llou v. O'Brien, 20 Mich. 304; State v. Torinus, 24 

 Minn. 332. 



5. Handlord v. U. S., 92 Fed. 881, 35 C. C. A. 75; See Ely v. U. S.. 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,- 



581, 4 Dill. 464. 



6. Wells v. Nickles, 104 U. S. 447; U. S. v. Cook 19 Wall. 591; Ncrris v. U. S. 44 Fed. 



735;Ballouv. O'Brien, 20 Mich. 304; Stephenson v. Little 10 Mich. 433; See 

 Cotton v. U. S., 11 How. 229. 



7. Letter of Sec'y Interior to Sec'y Treasury, Nov. 15, 1886 (5 L. D. 240) ; See ex- 



plicit legislative sanction in Act April 30, 1878, (20 Stat. L. 46), Sec. 2. 



