TIMBER TRESPASS UPON PUBLIC LANDS 107 



the expressed approval of the Department of Justice, l the 

 apparent sanction of the Federal courts and the full knowl- 

 edge of the Federal legislature. There would seem to be 

 little question that the right of seizure will be fully sus- 

 tained if brought directly before the Supreme Court. 

 One who takes timber from public lands will be held a wil- 

 ful trespasser unless he can show a right or license. 2 

 The United States or a state may maintain either an action 

 of trespass 3 for the damage done in the cutting or removal 

 of timber, or one in trover 4 for the value of the timber cut 

 and removed, irrespective of whether the operations of the 

 trespasser have been profitable or not ; 5 but the govern- 

 ment must depend upon a recovery of such value and can- 

 not enforce an accounting in equity for the gains and profit 

 realized by the trespasser. 6 An action will lie against a 

 partner individually fot* a trespass by the firm to which 

 he belonged. 7 The recovery of multiple damages 8 

 and penalties 9 has been allowed under statutes providing 

 for the protection of timber belonging to states. 



1. Opin. Atty. Gen'l. Aug. 23, 1886, Vol. 18 Op. Atty. Gen. p. 434. 



2. Nor hern Pac. R. Co. v. Lewis, 162 U. S., 366, 16 S. Ct. 831, 40 L. Ed. 1002 



(Revers'g 51 Fed. 658, 2 C. C. A. 446) ; U. S. \. Cook, 19 Wall. (U. S.) 591; An- 

 derson v. U. S. 152 F,d. 87, 81 C. C. A. 311; Grubbs v. U. S. 105 Fed. 314, 44 

 C. C A. 513- U. S. v. Baxter, 46 Fed. 350; U. S. v. Taylor, 35 Fed. 484. But 

 set In re Whitmore, Myr. Prob. (Calif.) 103. 



3. Cotton v. U. S., 11 Howard 229; U. S. v. Bitter Root Dev. Co. 133 Fed. 274, 66 



C. C. A. 652 Aff'd in 200 U. S. 451, 26 S. Ct. 318, 50 L. Ed. 550); U. S. v. 

 Taylor, 35 Fed. 844; U. S. v. Smith 11 Fed. 487, 8 Sawy. 100; State v. Mullen, 

 97 Me. 331, 54 Atl. 841; State v. Cutler, 16 Me. 348; Newcomb v. Butterfleld, 

 8 Johns. (N. Y.) 342; Graham v. Moore, 4 Serg, & R. (Pa.) 467; Nichelson v. 

 Cameron Lbr. Co., 39 Wash. 569, 81 Pac. 1059. 



4. U. S. v. Montana Lbr. Co., 196 V S. 573, 25 S. Ct. 367, 49 L. Ed. 604; Oamfleld 



v. U. S., 167 U. S. 518, 17 S. Ct. 864, 42 L. Ed. 260; Woodenware Co. v. U. S. 106 

 U. S. 432, 1 S. Ct. 864. 27 L. Ed. 230; U. S. v. Cook, 19 Wall. (U. S.) 591; U. S. 

 v. Birdseye, 137 Fed. 516, 70 C. C. A. 100; Powers v. U. S. 119 Fed. 562, 56 

 C. C. A. 128; English v. U. S. 116 Fed. 625. 54 C. C. A. 811 (Affm'g 107 Fed. 867) ; 

 Gentry v. U. S., 101 Fed. 51, 41 C. C. A. 185; U. S. v. Eureka etc. 

 R. Co., 40 Fed. 419; U. S. v. Scott, 39 Fed. 900; U. S. v. Taylor, 35 Fed. 484; 

 Bly v. U. S. 3 Fed. Cas. 1,581, 4 Dill. 464; U. S. v. Nelson, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 

 15,864, 5 Sawy. 68; U. S. v. Williams, 8 Mont. 85, 19 Pac. 288. 

 But see U. S. v. Losekamp, 127 Fed. 959, 62 C. C. A. 591; U. S. v. Mullen Fuel Co., 

 118 Fed. 663: U. S. v. Loughrey, 71 Fed. 921, 18 C. C. A. 391 (Aff'd in 172 U. S. 

 206, 19 S. Ct. 153, 43 L. Ed. 420. . 



5. U. S. v. Humphries, 149 U. S. 277, 13 S. Ct. 850, 37 L. Ed. 734. 



6. U. S. v. Bitter Root Dev. Co., 133 Fed. 274, 66 C. C. A. 652 (Aff'd in 200 U. S. 451, 



26 S. Ct. 318, 50 L. Ed. 550; U. S. v. Van Winkle, 113 Fed. 903, 51 C. C. A. 533; 

 U. S. v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 6 Mont. 351, 12 Pac. 769. 



7. U. S. v. Gumm, 9 N. M. 611, 58 Pac. 398. 



8. State v. Shevlin-Carpenter Co., 102 Minn. 470, 113 N. W. 634, 114 N. W. 738. 



9. People v. Bennett, 56 Misc. (N. Y.) 160, 107 N. Y. Suppl. 406 (Aff'd in 125 N. Y. 



App. Div. 912, 109 N. Y. Suppl. 1140); People v. McFadden, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 

 396. See also People v. Holmes, 166 N. Y. 540, 60 N. E. 249 (Affm. 53 N. Y. 

 App. Div. 626, 65 N. Y. Suppl. 1142); and People v. Turner, 49 Hun (N.Y.) 466. 

 2 N. Y. Suppl. 253 (Aff'd in 117 N. Y. 227. 22 N. E. 1022. 15 Am. St. Rep. 498.) 



