152 CONTRACTS REGARDING GROWING TIMBER 



piration of the time limited for removal, l and on the other 

 hand if the contract specifically provides for a reversion of 

 all timber left on the land at the tine of expiration, the for- 

 feiture will be sustained 2 Where timber already cut re- 

 verts to the land owner the one who cut will ordinarily be 

 Unable to obtain recompense for the labor bestowed upon the 

 timber in cutting. 3 



If the contract contains no definite limitation of time for 

 removal, the rule of the jurisdiction as to definite limitations 

 will be applied after the expiration of a reasonable time. 4 



It is clear that the land owner should not be permitted to 

 take advantage of a forfeiture of the timber if the failure of 

 the purchaser to remove the timber was due to the fault of 

 the land owner, and this principle has been recognized in 

 specific cases, 5 and under such circumstances the vendee 

 will be given an additional time within which to remove the 

 timber. 6 It was also held that a limitation of the removal 

 to one logging season would not be given effect in a locality 

 where logging was carried on the year around and the re- 

 moval of the timber sold could not be reasonably accom- 



1. Ala. Vizard v. Robinson, 181 Ala. 349, 61 So. 959. 

 Ark. See Tucker v. Lbr. Co., 129 S. W. 1085. 



Cal. Ciapusci v. Clark, 12 Cal. App. 44, 106 Pac. 436. See Gibbs v. Peterson, 



163 Cal. 758, 127 Pac. 62; Gibbs v. Peterson, 1.47 Cal. 1, 81 Pac. 121. 



109 Am. St. Rep. 107. 



111. Walker v. Johnson, 116 111. App. 145. 



Ky. Shepherd v. Bank, 156 Ky. 495, 161 S. W. 214; Land Etc. Co. v. Moss, 



97 S. W. 354, 29 Ky. L. Rep. 6. 



N. C. See Lbr. Co. v. Smith, 150 N. C. 253, 63 S. E. 954. 

 Tex. Davis v. Conn. (Civ. App.), 161 S. W. 39; Lbr. Co. v. Taylor, 100 Tex. 



270, 98 S. W. 238. 



W. Va. Brown v. Gray, 68 W. Va. 555, 70 S. E. 276. 



U. S. Lbr. Co. v. Long, 182 Fed. 82. Cf. U. S. v. Lbr. Co., 172 Fed. 714. 

 Can. McNeill v. Haines, 17 Ont. 479; McGregor v. McNeil, 32 U. C. C. P. 538. 



2. Gamble v. Gates, 92 Mich. 510, 52 N. W. 941. 



3. Ibid. 



4. Magnetic Ore Co. v. Marbury Lbr. Co., 104 Ala. 465, 16 So. 632, 53 Am. St. Rep. 



73, 27 L. R. A. 434; Hoit v. Stratton Mills, 54 N. H. 109, 20 Am. Rep. 119. 



5. Small v. Robarge, 132 Mich. 356, 93 N. W. 874. 

 See Kimsey v. Posey, 148 Ky. 54, 145 S. W. 1121. 



6. Ky. Jackson v. Harding, 87 S. W. 1119, 27 Ky. L. Rep. 1110; Chestnut v. 



Green, 86 S. W. 1122, 27 Ky. L. Rep. 838. 

 Mich. Sullivan v. Godkin, 172 Mich. 257, 137 N. W. 521 (Purchaser of land from 



which timber was sold must prove amount of timber removed after 



expiration of tune limit). 



N. Y. But see Inderlied v. Whaley, 65 Hun 407, 20 N. Y. Suppl. 183. 

 N. C. U. S. v. Mason Lbr. Co., 172 Fed. 714 (Indian timber). 

 Tex. Brooks v. Moss (Civ. App.) 175 S. W. 791. 

 Va. Cf. Furniture Co. v. Rhea, 114 Va. 271, 76 S. E. 330. 

 Wis. Cf. Gotham v. Lbr. Co., 156 Wis. 442, 146 N. W. 505 



