In this suit the plaintiff is seeking to recover the value of timber cut and removed from his land. It appears from the allegation in the petition that the plaintiff is contending that the defendant was guilty of moral bad faith in the cutting and removing of timber, and, in the alternative, that the defendant is in legal bad faith in removing the timber, and, in the further alternative, that plaintiff is entitled to recover the value of the stumpage of logs cut and removed from the land. The plaintiff also seeks damages for the destruction of a fence on his property, and the amount expended for the employment of a cruiser to estimate the amount of timber cut and removed by the defendant, and also for legal interest from judicial demand until paid. The defendant opposed the suit on the ground that it was the owner of the timber at the time it was cut and removed by virtue of a timber deed executed by the plaintiff in favor of the defendant. Upon trial the lower court gave judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the stumpage value of the timber cut and removed by the defendant, and cast the defendant in damages for the sum of $240, with 5% per annum interest thereon from judicial demand until paid. The defendant has appealed and the plaintiff has answered the appeal asking for an increase in the award alleging that the defendant was guilty of moral bad faith, and, in the alternative, in legal bad faith. In his answer to the appeal, plaintiff asks for an increase in the award for damages to the fence and the cost of estimating the timber.
*471We find from the contract between the parties executed on October 14, 1948 that the defendant was to have two years to cut and remove the timber from plaintiff’s land. In this contract it is provided: “in event of high water after this time, Martin Timber Co. is to get additional one years time.”
The timber was cut and removed during the month of July, 1951. The sole question presented in this case resolves itself to the interpretation of this clause in the contract, viz.: “in event of high water after this time, Martin Timber Co. is to get additional one year’s time.”
The plaintiff takes the position that it was the intention of the parties that the defendant was to be granted an additional year if it was prevented from removing the timber during the two year period. In other words, he contends that there was sufficient time within this two year period for the removal of the timber without the interference of high water.
The defendant, on the other hand, contends that it was granted an additional one year to remove the timber in the event of high water at any time during the two year period.
Both parties concede that the provision granting an additional one year to remove the timber when it used the phrase “after this time” has reference to the date of the execution of the contract on October 14, 1948.
It appears that there was considerable high water on this land within the two year period of the contract. The evidence is somewhat conflicting as to whether or not the defendant was prevented from removing the timber within two years from the date of the contract on account of high water. But this is immaterial under the very wording contained in the contract granting defendant an additional year within which to remove the timber “in event of high water after this time.” The language used in this provision of the contract is clear and unambiguous and we cannot go beyond it with the view of seeking the intention of the parties. If they had intended otherwise they should have so stated in their contract.
Whenever, a contract, or any provision therein, is plain and unambiguous it must be enforced as written and cannot be rewritten by this Court for the reason that it is our province to construe contracts according to their terms if the language used is clear and unambiguous. Article 1901 of the LSA-Civil Code; Moriarty v. Weiss, 196 La. 34, 198 So. 643; Texas Co. v. State Mineral Board, 216 La. 742, 44 So.2d 841; Stack v. DeSoto Properties, 221 La. 384, 59 So.2d 428; Succession of Jurisich, 224 La. 325, 69 So.2d 361.
Insofar as the damage to the fence is concerned, the representative of the defendant testified that he offered to repair the fence but the plaintiff informed him that it *473was not necessary because he intended to remove it and erect a new fence. The plaintiff denies that he made any such offer. It would appear to us that when the representative of the defendant admits that he would repair the fence that, therefore, he recognized his liability for the damages caused by the destruction of the fence. The evidence' is very conflicting as to the condition of the fence and the portion of the fence destroyed or injured by the logging operations. Such being the case, we would not be warranted in disturbing the judgment of the lower court insofar as it awarded the plaintiff $240 for the damage to the fence. Insofar as the cost expended by the plaintiff for the estimate of the timber cut is concerned, it must be denied in view of our holding herein.
For the reasons assigned, that part of the judgment awarding the plaintiff the stump-age value of the timber and the cost of estimating the timber is reversed and set aside; and the judgment is amended so as to allow the plaintiff judgment against the defendant in the sum of $240 with 5% per annum interest thereon from judicial demand until paid. All costs in this suit to be equally borne between the plaintiff and the defendant.