INTERSTATE LUMBER COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
WILLIAM R. WOODS, DEFENDANT IN ERROR

Fla. | 1914-03-12
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Hocker and Whitfield, J. J., concur.
67 Fla. 202 Florida Supreme Court (1914) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

In this trespass action, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed a judgment for $650 awarded to Woods against Interstate Lumber Company for cutting timber on his land without proper authorization. The court rejected the lumber company's claims of right to cut smaller trees and build a tramroad through the property.


Holding

The court affirmed the judgment, finding the lumber company had no right to cut the smaller trees or build the tramroad. The court rejected the theory that a right to cut certain timber impliedly conferred the right to build a tramroad across the property.


Key Quotes

“It had no right and claimed no right to cut smaller trees, and yet over the owner's insistent protest it did cut down more than six hundred smaller trees, ranging from ten to thirteen inches in diameter at the stump, of a market value of three hundred dollars”

Establishes the lumber company's unauthorized cutting of timber beyond its claimed rights

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Interstate Lumber Company cut down over 600 smaller trees (10-13 inches in diameter) on Woods' land without authorization, despite having no claimed r…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
Cockrell, J.

Cockrell, J.

In this action of trespass, Woods recovered judgment against the Interstate Lumber Company for cutting down trees, carrying off cross-ties and building a tramroad through Woods’ land.

There is and can be no question that the plaintiff was entitled to a judgment, nor do we entertain a doubt that the recovery was for too much.

The defendant was given the full benefit, despite its failure to establish the fact by legal evidence, of a right to cut the trees upon the land, measuring fourteen inches and over in diameter at the stump. It had no right and claimed no right to cut smaller trees, and yet over the owner’s insistent protest it did cut down moré than six hundred smaller trees, ranging from ten to thirteen inches in diameter at the stump, of a market value of three hundred dollars, according to credible testimony. For the defense there was a different count as to the number of trees, but the evidence upon which the count was based is disjointed and fragmentary. The estimate of the value of the cross-ties varies from twenty-five to fifty dollars.

There can be no question that the tramroad was built across the property without shadow of right, interfering with the farming operations of the owner of the land, and over his most vehement protest. It is thought to justify this arbitrary action upon the theory that a right to cut certain timber on a 120-acre tract impliedly conferred the right to build a tramroad thereon in order to reach other timber owned beyond this tract by the lumber company; the Circuit Court properly refused, to yield to such construction.

We find no assignments of error of merit going to the right of action or to the measure of damages. The court was warranted by the evidence in charging the jury as to exemplary damages, and in not disturbing the verdict for $650.

The judgment is affirmed.

Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Hocker and Whitfield, J. J., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Seaboard Air. Line Railway v. McRainey, 69 Fla. 462 (Fla. 1915)
    …s requires the construction of a private tram road over the railroad track on which to run engines and cars for the purpose of transporting logs brought from other lands .by the appellees on its private tram road. See Interstate Lumber Co. v. Woods, 67 Fla. 202, 64 South. Rep. 741. Common carrier railroads are public utilities whose property used in transporting passengers and freight must be safe-guarded for the safety of persons and property in transit. A bond would not afford safety, or indemnify losse…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw