Ward v. Rapp

• Decision Date: 20 February 1890
• Citation: 44 N.W. 934,79 Mich. 469
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: WARD v. RAPP.

44 N.W. 934

79 Mich. 469

WARD v. RAPP.

Supreme Court of Michigan

February 20, 1890

Error to circuit court, Kalamazoo county; GEORGE M. BUCK, Judge.

How. St. Mich. � 7957, referred to in the opinion, provides that "every person who shall cut down or carry off any wood underwood, trees, or timber, * * * on the land of any other person, without the leave of the owner thereof, * * * shall be liable to the owner of such land * * * in three times the amount of damages which shall be assessed therefor in an action of trespass by a jury, or by a justice of the peace."

Frank E. Knappen, for appellant.

O T. Tuthill, for appellee.

GRANT J.

Plaintiff sued defendant in an action for trespass, claiming and recovering treble damages under How. St. � 7957. Plaintiff was the sole owner in fee of the land at the time of the alleged trespass. Defendant admits the cutting of the timber but defends under a parol license given by one Curran to Newell Henry, and by said Henry sold and assigned to him, and also insists that there was no evidence to sustain a judgment for treble damages. Plaintiff and Oscar Curran were the owners of this land as tenants in common. Curran gave permission to Newell Henry to enter upon this land, and cut timber enough therefrom to build him a small house. Henry purchased lumber of defendant with which to build the house, amounting to $36.49, and, in consideration therefor, transferred to defendant his license to cut this timber. Before Curran sold to plaintiff, he revoked the license, by forbidding Henry to cut any more timber. Curran deeded to plaintiff by quitclaim deed, without any reservation. Defendant knew of this deed, and saw plaintiff, who forbade his cutting the timber. Defendant then informed plaintiff that he should cut the timber just the same. He did proceed to cut it, working upon Sunday to get the timber off.

The permission given to Henry by Curran was a mere naked license personal to Curran, and not assignable. It was revoked both by the act of Curran in forbidding Henry to cut, and also by the deed from Curran to plaintiff. Neither Curran nor plaintiff was party to the arrangement between Henry and defendant. As against either plaintiff or Curran, the defendant obtained no greater right than Henry had. Payment by defendant to Henry did not bind Curran or his grantee. Defendant therefore had no right upon the land, and was a trespasser. Under the testimony, the...