Bates v. Brevard-Woods Stave Co.
Bates v. Brevard-Woods Stave Co.
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
The appellants sued the appellee in an action of trespass in two counts for cutting timber off certain lands described in the declaration; one count being for statutory damages of fifteen dollars per tree, and the other count for actual damages, the actual value of the trees. The number of trees cut was two hundred and fifty-eight. The action originated from the cutting by the appellee of two hundred and fifty-eight trees under the size stipulated for in the contract. The Stave Company bought of the appellants all hickory timber eight inches and over at the stump, and all other timber of other kind twelve inches and over at the stump, on a certain body of land. The contract of sale gave it a specified time in which to move the timber. The Stave Company sent its employees upon the land in question, and these laborers cut two hundred and fifty-eight oak trees less than twelve inches in diameter at the place cut; the stumps measuring
The presumption of law is that every man intends to do what he does do, and in the absence of the proper showing of honest mistake, the defendant would be held to have willfully done what he did do. It is not sufficient to send out a bunch of laborers, with general instructions to cut only twelve inches and up; but it devolves upon the owner to exercise reasonable superintendence over the employees, to see that they cut the timber according to the contract and with due regard to the rights of the other party. This case falls within the principle of Clay v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co., 70 Miss. 406, 11 So. 658. In that case, in discussing the duty of the master with reference to the superintendence of the laborers, the court said. “If Fisher was negligent in sending out a large number of ordinary laborers to clear out the way, and erect its line, over a highway ten miles jn length, even though he had instructed these laborers not to invade private property, the company was liable for the injury flowing from its agent’s negligence. The proper inquiry was, not whether Fisher was absent superintending the removal of his camp from Jackson to Clinton, but was the sending out of a gang of irresponsible laborers, without any intelligent and controlling head, with no agent of the company to perform Fisher’s duty of supervising the work, under the evidence in the case, negligence on Fisher’s part, and imputable to his principal? It could not
The court having given a peremptory instruction to find against the plaintiff: as to the first count, and refusing to submit the question of whether the cutting was in good faith to the jury, we think it committed error, and the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
Reference
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Evidence. Presumptions. Intent. The presumption of law is that every man intends to do what he does do, and in the absence of the proper showing of honest mistakes, the defendant would be held to have wilfully done what he did do. 2. Master and Servant. Cutting timber. Trespass. Liability. It is not sufficient for the purchaser of standing timber of certain dimensions only, to send out a hunch of laborers with general instructions to cut only the timber of the dimensions purchased; hut it devolves upon him to exercise reasonable superintendence over the employees, to see that they cut the timber according to his contract and with due regard to the rights of the other party.