Jackson ex dem. Church v. Brownson

New York Supreme Court
7 Johns. 227 (1810)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

While a lessee in the United States may clear wooded land for agricultural purposes, a practice forbidden by English common law, this right is limited; clearing timber to an extent that causes a permanent injury to the inheritance constitutes waste.

Facts:

A lessor leased a large tract of heavily wooded land, described as a forest, to a lessee.
The lease contained a covenant prohibiting the lessee from committing waste.
The lease also included a covenant preventing the lessee from assigning the lease without the lessor's permission.
The original lessee, with the lessor's consent, assigned the lease to a new tenant.
The new tenant proceeded to cut down the timber on almost every acre of the leased property.
The purpose of clearing the land was to prepare it for agricultural use.

Procedural Posture:

The lessors of the plaintiff brought an action against the lessee's assignee in the trial court to recover possession of the property.
At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case at trial, the judge ordered a nonsuit, dismissing the plaintiff's action before it went to the jury.
The plaintiff then filed a motion with the appellate court to set aside the nonsuit and grant a new trial.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a lessee's act of clearing nearly all the timber from a heavily wooded property for cultivation constitute waste that triggers a forfeiture of the lease under American common law?

Opinions:

Majority - Van Ness, J.

Yes, cutting down nearly all the timber on the property constitutes waste. The central principle of waste is any act that causes a permanent injury to the inheritance (the owner's reversionary interest). While the English common law rule against felling timber must be adapted for American conditions where clearing land for cultivation is necessary, this right is not unlimited. A tenant cannot destroy all the timber, thereby permanently diminishing the value of the inheritance and leaving no wood for essential repairs to fences and buildings. Whether the extent of the clearing crosses the line from permissible cultivation to impermissible waste is a question of fact for a jury to decide based on the principle of permanent injury.

Dissenting - Spencer, J.

No, the lessee's actions do not constitute waste sufficient to work a forfeiture. Covenants that lead to forfeiture must be construed strictly and literally. The English doctrine of waste is inapplicable to a new country where cleared land is often more valuable than woodland. Under a literal interpretation, any clearing for agriculture would be waste, making the lease of a forest for farming repugnant to the grant itself. The common law provides a fixed rule: cutting timber is waste unless for specific purposes like fuel or repairs (estovers); the quantity is irrelevant. The majority's standard of 'permanent injury' is vague and uncertain, leaving lessees unsafe. The lessor's proper remedy is an action for damages for breach of covenant, not the harsh penalty of forfeiture.

Analysis:

This case is a foundational example of American courts adapting English common law to the unique circumstances of the United States. It rejects the rigid, per se rules of English waste doctrine in favor of a more flexible, context-sensitive standard based on reasonableness and permanent harm. The decision balances the tenant's right to make productive use of the land with the landlord's long-term interest in its value. By making the determination of waste a question for the jury, the court established a standard that could be applied to the varied agricultural and economic conditions across the developing nation.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Jackson ex dem. Church v. Brownson (1810)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"