138 CONTRACTS REGARDING GROWING TIMBER 



trees. * If the conveyance is made by deed this right will 

 be in the nature of an irrevocable easement, 2 but if the sale 

 be one by parol the privilege of entry is in most jurisdictions 

 merely a revocable license. 3 The extent of the h'cense or 

 right will be dependent upon the existing conditions as well 

 as the specific terms of the contract and may include the 

 placing of a logging railroad 4 upon the land or the crossing 

 of cleared lands 5 of the vendee with logging roads. In- 

 tentional licenses for the removal of timber and the privi- 

 leges construed as licenses which result from ineffectual at- 

 tempts to sell timber by parol, have been very common in 

 American states. 6 Such licenses while unrevoked afford 



1. Ala. Yarbrough v. Stewart, 67 So. 989. 



Lbr. Co. v. Eisely, 163 Ala. 290, 50 So. 225. 



But see Christopher v. Lbr. Co., 57, Ala., 837. 

 Ark. Earl v. Harris, 137 S. W. 806, Sidle v. Mfg. Co. 91 Ark. 299, 121 S. W. 399. 



(Use of stream). 



Fla. Cf. Lbr. Co. v. Woods, 67 Fla. 202, 64 So. 741. (Road to other timber.) 

 Ga. See Lbr. Co. v. Gates, 70 S. E. 672. (May destroy timber in roads.)Lbr. Co. 



v. Beall, 5 Ga. App. 202, 62 S. E. 1056. 

 Ind. Young v. Waggoner (Ind. App.) 98 N. E. 145. 

 Ky. Shepherd etc. Co. v. Templeman, 143 Ky. 334, 136 S. W. 648. 



But see Bates v. Lbr. Co., 130 Ky. 608, 113 S. W. 820, 132 A. S. R. 407. 



(Not to injure land.) 



Me. Goodwin v. Hubbard, 47 Me. 595. 

 Mass. Putnam v. Tuttle, 10 Gray 48. 

 Minn. Pinetree Lbr. Co. v. McKinley 86 N. W. 414 (Way over one tract to 



another) . 



N. C. Wilson v. Scarboro, 163 N. C. 380, 79 S. E. 811. 

 S. C. Rush v. Hilton, 83 S. C. 444, 65 S. E. 525. 

 Tex. See Davis v. Conn, (Civ. App.) 161 S. W. 39 .(Not liable acts 3d. parties.) 



Davidson v. Lbr. Co. (Civ. App.) 143 S. W. 700 (not liable for injuries to 



land if uses only means covered by contract). 



Vt. Cilley v. Bacon, 88 Vt. 496, 93 Atl. 261. (Cut trees for roads etc.) 

 Wash. Brodack v. Morsbach, 38 Wash. 72, 80 Pac. 275. 



U. S. Vosburg Co. v. Watts, 221 Fed. 402. (Not to injure timber reserved ap- 

 pliances.) See Creek Co. v. Coal etc. Co. 166 Fed. 62, 91 C. C. A. 648. 

 (Does not include right to sell liquor.) 

 Eng. Liford's Case, 11 Coke, 46 b. 



2. Ky. Louisville Turnpike Co. v. Shadburne, 1 Ky. L. Rep. 325. 



Mass. Worthern v. Garno. 82 Mass. 243, 65 N. E. 67; White v. Foster, 102 Mass. 



375. 



Mich. Wait v. Baldwin, 60 Mich. 622. 



Minn. Pine Tree Lbr. Co. v. McKinley. 83 Minn. 419, 86 N. W. 414. 

 Tenn. GaUoway-Pearse Co. v. Sabin, 130 Tenn. 575, 72 S. W. 292. 



3. Armstrong v. Lawson, 73 Ind. 498. 



4. Waters v. Greenleaf-Johnson Lumber Co., 115 N. C. 648, 20 S. E. 718. 



5. Stephen > v. Gordon, 19 Ont. App. 176. 



If trees excepted under lease, landlord may enter to take; Brooks v. Rogers, 101 

 Ala. Ill; Pomfret v. Ricroft, 1 Saund. 322b; But not if only underwood ex- 

 cepted, Leigh v. Heald, 1 B & Ad. 622. 



6. 111. Faith v. Yocum, 51 111. App. 620. 



Ind. Spacy v. Evans, 152 Ind. 431, 52 N. E. 605; Watson v. Adams, 32 Ind. App. 



281, 69 N. E. 696. 



Iowa Garner v. Mahoney, 115 Iowa 356, 88 N. W. 828. 



Me. Pierce v. Ganton, 98 Me. 553, 57 Atl. 889; Folsom v. Moore, 19 Me. 252. 

 (Footnote 6 continued on next page) 



