This section is from the book "The Law Of Real Property and Other Interests In Land", by Herbert Thorn Dike Tiffany. Also available from Amazon: A Treatise on the Modern Law of Real Property and Other Interests in Land .
Things wrongfully severed by the particular tenant in the course of commission of waste belong to the reversioner or remainderman,18 and the latter may presumably mainhaving an interesse termini, that is, an estate for years to commence in the future. Evans v. Prince's Bay Oyster Co., 154 N. Y. Supp. 279; and also that of one having a contingent right of reentry for breach of a condition. Pavkovich v. Southern Pacific R. R. Co.. 150 Cal. 39, 87 Pac. 1097. But, that one having a mere possibility of reverter after a determinable fee is not ordinarily entitled to an injunction, see Dees v. Cheuvronts, 240 111. 486, 88 N. E. 1011.
13. Brown v. Brown, 94 S. C. 492, 78 S. E. 447; Contra, Rumsey v. Sullivan, (N. Y. App. Div.) 150 N. Y. Supp. 287; See editorial notes in 28 Harv. Law Rev. it p. 615, 15 Columbia Law Rev, at p. 364.
14. Lutterel's Case, cited Prec. Ch. 50; Robinson v. Litton, 3 Atk.
209; Garth v. Cotton, 1 Ves. 546, 555.
15. That the forfeiture extended only to so much of the premises as was wasted, see Co. Litt. 54 a; Jackson v. Tibbitts, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 341.
16. 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law, Sec. 1332 (B).
17. See Thacher v. Phinney, 89 Mass. (7 Allen) 146; Jackson v. Andrew, 18 Johns. (N. Y.) 434; Williard v. Williard, 56 Pa. 119; Northcraft v. Blumauer, 53 Wash. 243 101 Pac. 871.
18. Bewes, Waste, 193; Bowies' Case, 11 Coke, 79; Herlakenden's Case, 4 Coke, 62 a; Bewick v. Whitfield, 3 P. Wms. 267; Bulkey v. Dolbeare, 7 Conn. 232; Richardson v. York, 14 Me. 216; White v. Cutler, 34 Mass. (17 Pick.) 248, 28 Am. Dec. 296; Johnson v. Johnson, 18 N. H. 594; Lane v. ThompSec. 291] tain replevin for their recovery,,19 or he may sue the tenant in trover for their value,20 or, in case the tenant subsequently removes them, in trespass.21
The tenant in possession is entitled to the proceeds of such wood as may be rightfully severed by him, whether he makes the severance,22 or it is the result of a wind storm or other action of the elements,23 and a like doctrine applies in connection with other acts which do not involve waste.24 So in the case of a tenancy without impeachment of waste, the proceeds of trees or minerals severed from the land, either by the elements or by a stranger, belong to the tenant, as if they were severed by him.25
A life tenant is, upon the vesting of his estate in possession, entitled to the proceeds of a severance made during the possession of previous tenants for life unimpeachable of waste, under the same settlement.26 son, 43 N. H. 320; Shult v. Barker. 12 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 272; Williamson v. Jones, 43 W. Va. 562, 27 S. E. 411.
19. Warren County Sup'rs -Gans, 80 Miss. 76, 31 So. 539. And see McNally v. Connolly, 70 Cal. 3, 11 Pac. 320, and cases cited 13 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed., 680, note 4.
20. Vin. Abr. Trees (A) pl. 7; Farrant v. Thompson, 5 Barn & Ald. 826; Udal v. Udal, Aleyn, 81; Brooks v. Rogers. 101 Ala. Ill, 13 So. 386; Warren County Sup'rs v. Gans, 80 Miss. 76, 31 So. 539; Schermerhorn v. Buell, 4 Demo (N. Y.) 422.
21. Vin Abr., Trees (A) pl. 7; Udal v. Udal, Aleyn, 81; Schermerhorn v. Buell, 40 Denio (N. Y.) 422.
22. Clement v. Wheeler, 25 N. H. 361; Keeler v. Eastman, 11 Vt. 293; Proffitt v. Henderson, 29 Mo. 325; Crockett v. Crockett, 2 Ohio St. 180.
23. Bateman v. Hotchkin, 31 Beav. 486; Heiiakenden's Case, 4 Coke. 63 a; Bowles' Cas, 11 Coke, 79 b.
24. Lewis v. Godson, 15 Ont. £52. But , clause in the lease au-thorizing the tenant to make alterations in a building does not entitle him to the articles severel in making the alterations. Agate v. Lowenbein, 57 N. Y. 604.
25. Bowies' Case. 11 Coke, 79 b; Bewes, Waste, 151; A ony-mous. Mos. 237; In re Barrington. 33 Ch. Div. 523.
26. Gent v. Harrison, Johns. 517; Lowndes v. Norton, 6 Ch. Div. 139.