Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Wetherbee v. Green

Michigan Supreme Court · 1871 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawPropertyAccessionReplevinLicenseaccessiongood faithsubstantial change of identity

Facts

Wetherbee cut timber from plaintiffs' land and manufactured it into hoops. He claimed he acted under a license from Sumner, who had formerly been a tenant in common and whom Green had authorized to give such a license, though Sumner had already conveyed his interest to Camp and Brooks. Wetherbee also offered to show that he acted in good faith, without knowledge of Sumner's conveyance, and that the timber worth about $25 had been transformed by his labor and expense into hoops worth about $700. The trial court rejected this evidence and awarded plaintiffs the hoops in replevin.

Issue

When a person in good faith and under a supposed right takes another's timber and, without intent to do wrong, expends labor and money to transform it into a materially different and vastly more valuable product, may the original owner still reclaim the finished goods in replevin? A secondary issue was whether Wetherbee's license theory barred replevin.

Rule

If a defendant shows that he manufactured another's property in good faith and in the belief that he had proper authority, and his labor effected a substantial change of identity in the property, title to the original material is changed by accession and the owner's remedy is an action for damages for the unintentional trespass rather than replevin for the finished article. A mere license to enter land and cut timber, though informal and not conferring a legal right, protects the licensee for acts done under it before revocation because consent, not form, controls.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Traverse City, Michigan, Nolan Pierce obtained oral permission from Avery Sloan, whom Nolan reasonably believed still managed a wooded parcel, to cut several maple trees. Nolan did not know Avery had already conveyed his entire interest to Dana Kerr, and Nolan spent weeks turning the timber, worth about $400 standing, into custom barrel hoops worth $9,000.

If Dana brings replevin for the finished hoops, which result is most consistent with the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority rule allows a good-faith taker, acting under a supposed right and without intent to do wrong, to assert accession when his labor and expense produce a substantial change of identity and immense increase in value. In that event, the original owner may seek damages for the unintentional trespass but may not replevy the finished article.