242 MORTGAGE OF STANDING TIMBER 



a mortgagee can stop waste by the mortgagor in the way of 

 cutting timber even when the cutting is not such as to im- 

 peril the security of the mortgage. : When the debt se- 

 cured by a mortgage is paid the lien of the mortgage is dis- 

 charged and the title to timber on the land both standing 

 and severed reverts to the mortgagor or his vendee. 2 For 

 trespass committed by a stranger before default the mort- 

 gagor can maintain an action in his own name, 3 except that 

 some cases hold he has no action after the mortgagee takes 

 possession. 4 



160. A Mortgagee may Protect Interest in Timber 

 when Mortgagor is in Possession of Land. Under the 

 theory generally adopted in American States as to the legal 

 effect of a mortgage a mortgagor who is in possession of the 

 land prior to default or foreclosure may cut timber from the 

 premises for either use or sale in accordance with the ordin- 

 ary use and enjoyment of the estate, 5 but this cutting must 

 not be so extensive as to substantially impair the security 

 of the mortgage. 6 If the security of the mortgage is 

 threatened the mortgagee may obtain an injunction re- 

 straining the mortgagor from cutting timber. 7 Injunction 



1. Byromv. Chapin, 113 Mass. 308; Gooding v. Shea, 103 Mass. 360, 4 Am. Rep. 



563: See King v. Bangs, 120 Mass. 514; Leavltt v. Eastman, 77 Me. 117. 

 Cole v. Stewart 11 Cush. (Mass. 181.) 



2. Ban-on v. Faulting, 38 Ala. 292; Hutchins v. King, 1 Wall. (U. S.) 53, 17 L. Ed. 



544. 



3. Ala. Hamilton v. Griffin, 26 So. 243. 

 111. Abney v. Austin, 6 111 App. 49. 



Md. Annapolis etc. R. Co. v. Gantt, 39 Md. 115. 

 N. Y. Johnson v. White, 11 Barb. 194. 



Vt. Whitney v. Adams, 66 Vt. 679, 30 Atl. 32, 44 Am. St. Rep. 875, 25 L. R. A. 

 598. See also relevant decisions cited in note 22, Cyc. Vol. 27, p. 1272. 



4. Sparhawk v. Bagg, 16 Gray (Mass.) 583; Morey v. McGuire, 4 Vt. 327. See also 



related cases, 27 Cyc. p. 1272, note 23. 



5. Judkins v. Woodman, 81 Me. 351, 17 Atl. 298, 3 L. R. A. 307; Smith v. Moore, 



11 N. H. 55; Hapgood v. Blood, 11 Gray (Mass.) 400; Searle v. Sawyer 127 

 Mass. 491, 34 Am. Rep. 425; Angler v. Agnew, 98 Pa. St. 587, 42 Am. Rep. 

 624; Haskin v. Woodward, 45 Pa. St. 42; Wright v. Lake, 30 Vt. 206; In re 

 Phillips, 16 Ch. Div. 104; See also Steward v. Scott, 54 Ark. 187, 15 S. W. 

 463; Adams v. Corriston, 7 Minn. 456; Moore v. Southern States Land etc. 

 Co. 83 Fed. 399. Van Wyck v. Alliger 6 Barb. (N. Y.) 511. 



6. Maples v. Millon, 31 Conn. 598; Dorr v. Dudderar, 88 111. 107; Wilmarth v. Ban- 



croft, 10 Allen (Mass.) 348; Sanders v. Reed, 12 N. H. 558; Langdon v: Paul 

 22 Vt. 205; Simmins v. Shirley, 6 Ch. Div. 173. 



7. Coker v. Whitlock, 54 Ala. 180; Buckout v. Swift, 27 Cal. 434, 87 Am. Dec. 90; 



Robinson v. Russell, 24 Cal. 467; Cooper v. Davis, 15 Conn. 556 Williams v. 

 Chicago Exposition Co., 188 111. 19, 58 N. E 611; Gray v. Baldwin, 8 Blackf. 

 (Ind.) 164; Brown v. Stewart, 1 Md. Ch. 87; Webster v. Peet, 97 Mich. 326; 

 (Footnote 7 continued on next page) 



