Alexander v. Bauer
| Decision Date | 27 January 1905 |
| Docket Number | 14,218 - (195) |
| Citation | 102 N.W. 387,94 Minn. 174 |
| Parties | FRANK ALEXANDER v. H. D. BAUER |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Hubbard county, McClenahan, J., denying a motion for a new trial. Reversed and remanded with instructions.
Cutting Logs -- Title.
Claim and delivery to recover several thousand feet of logs. Under the terms of a contract whereby defendant was to have until a certain time to cut and remove the same from plaintiff's land, a portion thereof were cut before the limitation provided for in the contract expired, but were not removed until six months afterwards. Held:
1. That upon the failure to remove the logs before the time limited the title thereof did not revert to and become reinvested in the owner of the land.
2. That the title to the logs cut after the time limited was in the owner of the land, who might recover the same.
3. That the extent of the remedy in favor of the landowner for the logs cut within the limitation were such damages as he might have sustained by reason of the trespass and occupation of his land.
A. G Broker, for appellant.
E. F. Crawford, for respondent.
Action in claim and delivery for the recovery of ninety five thousand feet of logs cut and skidded by defendant on the land of plaintiff in Hubbard county. The cause was tried to the court, who made findings of fact, holding that the plaintiff was the owner of the logs in question, and entitled to the possession thereof. Judgment was ordered accordingly.
Under the terms of the contract established in this case, one Koop acquired the right from the legal owners of the land described in the complaint to cut and remove the timber therefrom until June 1, 1902, which right was transferred March 8, 1902, to the defendant. It appears that ninety four thousand feet of these logs were cut before June 1, 1902, by defendant, the assignee of Koop; that afterward one thousand feet of logs were cut by the defendant; and that the whole thereof were removed from the land in the following December, some six months after the time specified by the terms of the contract.
Under the only assignment which we are required to consider on this review, there arises the construction of the terms of the contract authorizing the defendant to cut and remove the logs from the plaintiff's land within the time limited. The learned trial court was led to the conclusion that, under the weight of authority, the terms "cut and remove," in the contract, imposed upon the defendant the duty not only to cut the logs, but to remove the same, before the limitation expired, and that, upon his failure to do so, the title to all the logs severed from the soil reverted to the owner of the land, and the latter might recover the same. It is apparent from the memorandum opinion of the trial court that he was led to this conclusion partly by remarks in the case of King v. Merriman, 38 Minn. 47, 35 N.W. 570, where it is stated that in a very few cases, under these conditions, "if the timber be cut within the time, the property is in the vendee, although not removed within the limitation of the contract," and that "this doctrine would seem to be based upon the supposed hardships of such a case, rather than upon strict logic." The inference adopted by the learned judge who wrote the opinion in this case was not necessary to its decision, and upon the view which we have taken, must be...
To continue reading
Request your trial