## Facts

- Landowners claiming title to a timbered tract sought to stop a lumber company from cutting timber on the disputed land.
- The landowners filed an equity action requesting an injunction to prevent timber cutting while title was litigated in a pending ejectment action.
- The trial court initially granted an injunction restraining timber cutting.
- In the ejectment action, a jury returned a verdict for the lumber company, but no final judgment was entered because the landowners moved to set the verdict aside.
- Relying on prior state decisions that required additional allegations (such as insolvency) before enjoining a trespass, the trial court dissolved the injunction despite the lack of a final ejectment judgment.
- The landowners appealed the dissolution order.

## Issues

1. Whether wrongful cutting of standing timber is an injury to the land not adequately remedied by damages, permitting injunctive relief without alleging the trespasser’s insolvency or other special circumstances.
2. Whether a claimant out of possession may obtain an injunction to restrain timber cutting while an ejectment action to determine title is pending or about to be filed.
3. Whether a jury verdict for the defendant in ejectment, without entry of final judgment, justifies dissolving an injunction entered to preserve the property pending determination of title.

## Decision

- The court reversed the decree dissolving the injunction and remanded.
- The court held that growing timber is part of the realty; its wrongful destruction is an injury to the land not adequately remediable at law.
- The court held that an owner has a protectable right to keep timber in its natural state until choosing to sever it, supporting equitable protection.
- The court held that obtaining an injunction against timber cutting does not require alleging insolvency of the trespasser or other facts showing damages would be futile.
- The court held that when title is disputed and ejectment is pending or imminent, an out-of-possession claimant may enjoin timber cutting pending resolution of title.
- The court held that a verdict for the defendant in ejectment, not carried into judgment, does not justify dissolving the injunction.
- The court disapproved and overruled prior conflicting state decisions to the extent they imposed contrary prerequisites for injunctive relief in this context.

## Legal Principles

- Standing timber is part of the land; wrongful destruction constitutes injury to the land itself and is not adequately remedied by damages.
- Equity may enjoin timber cutting to prevent injury to real property without requiring a showing that the trespasser is insolvent or that damages will be uncollectible.
- An injunction may issue to preserve the property and maintain the status quo while legal title is determined in ejectment.
- A jury verdict in ejectment, without final judgment, does not warrant dissolution of an injunction intended to protect the disputed property pending final adjudication.

## Conclusion

The court reinstated injunctive protection against timber cutting while title was litigated, treating timber destruction as an inadequately compensable injury to land and rejecting insolvency or similar “special circumstances” as prerequisites for equitable relief; a nonfinal ejectment verdict could not dissolve the injunction.


Pardee v. Camden Lumber Co., 70 W. Va. 68, 73 S.E. 82 (W. Va. 1911)