Stott v. J. Al. Pattison Lumber Co.
Oregon Supreme Court
Prom Multnomah: George W. Stapleton, Judge. Department 1. This is a suit brought to restrain defendants from cutting and removing timber upon plaintiffs ’ land, and to recover damages for the cutting and removal of timber theretofore taken.
Read the full summary
Prom Multnomah: George W. Stapleton, Judge. Department 1. This is a suit brought to restrain defendants from cutting and removing timber upon plaintiffs ’ land, and to recover damages for the cutting and removal of timber theretofore taken. The complaint alleged the ownership in plaintiffs of the land and timber in controversy; alleged that upon the land was a grove of fine oak trees which, from their location, made the premises valuable as a park and that by reason thereof the trees had a value greater than that which they would have, if sold for the purposes of being converted into lumber…
1Opinion of the CourtMcBRIDE, C. J.
1. This appeal presents but one question, and that question in a single form, namely: Could the court decree treble damages under Section 346, L. O. L., as amended by Glen. Laws 1917, p. 742, where such treble damages were not claimed in the prayer of the complaint? The section referred to provides as follows:
*607“Whenever any person shall cut down, girdle or otherwise injure, or carry off any tree, timber or shrub on the land of another person, or on the street or highway in front of any person’s house, village, town or city lot, or cultivated grounds, or on the commons or public grounds of any…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Chipman v. EmericCalifornia Supreme Court · 1855
- Spofford v. Bucksport & Bangor RailroadSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1876
- Snelling v. GarfieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
3Cited by2 opinions
- Kinzua Lumber Co. v. DaggettOregon Supreme Court · 1955
- Pedro v. JanuaryOregon Supreme Court · 1972