## Facts

- Green, Camp, and Brooks owned land from which Wetherbee cut timber.
- Wetherbee cut the timber under a purported license from Sumner, a former tenant in common who had previously been authorized by Green to grant timber-cutting licenses.
- Before Wetherbee’s license, Sumner had conveyed his interest to Camp and Brooks by warranty deed; Wetherbee claimed he did not know of that conveyance.
- Wetherbee sought to show the conveyance functioned only as security (a mortgage), leaving Sumner with possessory control until foreclosure, and that Sumner’s authority to license had not been revoked.
- Wetherbee obtained and relied on an abstract of title indicating ownership in Green and Sumner.
- Wetherbee used labor and money to convert standing trees into barrel hoops, increasing value from about $25 (timber) to about $700–$800 (hoops).
- The landowners sued in replevin to recover the finished hoops, not merely damages for the timber.

## Issues

1. Whether a good-faith cutter who, under a supposed right, substantially transforms another’s timber into a new product of greatly increased value acquires property in the finished product so that the owner cannot recover it in replevin and is limited to damages for the value of the timber.
2. Whether the trial court erred by excluding evidence of Wetherbee’s good-faith reliance on apparent authority and title information, and evidence of the comparative values of the timber and the hoops.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the replevin judgment for the landowners and ordered a new trial.
- The court held that a good-faith improver who effects a great transformation such that the new article is substantially different and derives nearly all its value from the improver’s labor may acquire title to the new article.
- If the jury finds good faith and substantial transformation, the landowners cannot replevy the hoops and are limited to damages equal to the value of the timber taken.
- The trial court’s exclusion of evidence bearing on good faith and the magnitude of the value change was reversible error because it was material to the accession analysis.

## Legal Principles

- Under the doctrine of accession, an owner’s right to follow and reclaim property taken without authority may be cut off when the property’s identity is substantially destroyed through manufacture into a different article.
- A good-faith taking under a supposed right, without intent to commit a wrong, coupled with substantial transformation and a large value increase attributable chiefly to the improver’s labor, can vest property rights in the improver as against the original owner.
- In such cases, the original owner’s remedy is compensation for the value of the original materials, not recovery of the improved chattel.
- Good faith is a central condition; different consequences may apply where the taking is willful, reckless, or malicious.
- Evidence of (a) the improver’s state of mind and basis for believing in authority and (b) the comparative values before and after processing is material to determining accession and the availability of replevin.

## Conclusion

The court held that replevin is unavailable where a defendant, acting in good faith under a supposed right, transforms another’s timber into a substantially different and far more valuable product; in that event, title may vest in the improver and the original owner is limited to damages for the value of the timber, requiring a new trial to allow the jury to consider excluded evidence on good faith and value.


Wetherbee v. Green, 22 Mich. 311 (Mich. 1871)