In  many  districts  in  this  country,  either  by  custom  or  by
reason  of  the  uncultivated  condition  of  the  land,  the  above  rule
is  not  in  force.  Where  the  removal  of  the  trees  is  necessary  for
the  proper  cultivation  of  the  soil,  and  where  such  removal
would  not  damage  but  be  a  benefit  to  the  inheritance,  waste  is
not  committed  if  it  is  done  in  conformity  with  good  hus-
bandry.*'

In  determining  the  question  whether  or  not  a  given  act  of
cutting  timber  is  waste,  it  is  proper  to  take  into  consideration
the  relative  amount  of  cleared  and  wooded  land,  the  customs
of  the  community  and  the  requirements  of  good  husbandry.^'
It  is  a  question  for  the  court  or  jury  to  determine  whether,
under  the  particular  circumstances,  the  acts  of  the  life  tenant
amount  to  waste.  The  life  tenant  may  be  permitted  by  the
terms  of  the  grant  to  commit  what  under  the  usual  conditions
would  be  considered  waste,  and  under  such  circumstances,  he
is  said  to  hold  his  life  estate  "without  impeachment  for  waste."

But  a  tenant  "without  impeachment  for  waste"  may  not
commit  wanton  and  deliberate  waste.*'

"Hubbard  vs.  Shaw,  94  Mass.,  120.
Webster  vs.  Peet,  97  Mich.,  326.
"Davis  vs.  Clark,  40  Mo.,  515.
Sayers  vs.  Hoskinson,  110  Pa.  St.,  473.
"Crawley  vs.  TImberlake,  2  Ird.  Bq.  (N.  C),  460.
"Clement  vs.  Wheeler,  25  N.  H.,  361.
RIGHTS  AND  LMIBILITIES  OIF  lilFB  TENANTS.  133

SOIL.
The  life  tenant  may  make  any  reasonable  use  of  the  soil;
but  he  must  not  exhaust  it  by  improper  tillage.  He  may  cul-
tivate the  land  in  any  manner  consistent  with  good  husbandry.
A  use  of  the  land  which  is  contrary  to  the  rules  of  good
husbandry  and  which  works  any  injury  to  the  soil  is  waste.
