CASE OF IMPEACHMENT OF WASTE. 259 



For if the lessor die, whereby his action is gone, then the 

 disseisor is likewise discharged, otherwise than for the spe 

 cial property. 



The second book is 9 E. IV. f. 35. where it is admitted, 9 E. 4. f. 35. 

 that if the lessor himself cut down the tree, the lessee shall 

 recover but for his special profit of shade, pannage, lop 

 pings, because he is not charged over. 



The third is 44 E. III. f. 44. where it is said, that if the 44 E. 3. f. 44. 

 lessee fell trees to repair the barn, which is not ruinous in 

 his own default, and the lessor come and take them away, 

 he shall have trespass, and in that case he shall recover for 

 the very body of the tree, for he hath an absolute property 

 in them for that intent. 



And that it is only for that intent appeareth notably by 38 Ass. f. l. 

 the book 38 Ass. f. 1. If the lessee after he hath cut down 

 the tree employ it not to reparations, but employ other trees 

 of better value, yet it is waste ; which showeth plainly the 

 property is respective to the employment. 



Nay, 5 E. IV. f. 100. goeth farther and showeth, that the 5 E. 4. f. 100. 

 special property which the lessee had was of the living tree, 

 and determines, as Herlackenden s case saith, by severance; 

 for then magis dignum trahit ad se minus dignum : for it 

 saith, that the lessee cannot pay the workmen s wages with 

 those parts of the tree which are not timber. And so I 

 leave the first demonstration of property, which is by 

 damages ; except you will add the case of 27 H. VIII. 27 H. 8. f. 13. 

 f. 13. where it is said, that if tenant for life, and he in the 

 reversion join in a lease for years, and lessee for years fell 

 timber trees, they shall join in an action of waste ; but he 

 in the reversion shall recover the whole damages: and 

 great reason, for the special property was in the lessee for 

 years, the general in hrm in the reversion, so the tenant for 

 life meane had neither the one nor the other. 



Now for the seisure, you may not look for plentiful 

 authority in that : for the lessor, which had the more bene 

 ficial remedy by action for treble damages, had little reason 

 to resort to the weaker remedy by seisure, and leases with 

 out impeachment were then rare, as I will tell you anon. 

 And therefore the question of the seisure came chiefly in 

 experience upon the case of the windfalls, which could not 

 be punished by action of waste. 



First, therefore, the case of 40 E. III. pi. 22. is express, 40 E. 3 pi. 22. 

 where at the King s suit, in the behalf of the heir of Darcy, 

 who was in ward, the King s lessee was questioned in 

 waste, and justified the taking of the trees, because they 



