Bruce v. John L. Roper Lumber Co

Decision Date22 January 1891
Citation87 Va. 381,13 S.E. 153
PartiesBruce v. John L. Roper Lumber Co.
CourtVirginia Supreme Court

Cutting Timber — Injunction — Written Contract — Parol Evidence — Rights of Stranger.

1. Where defendant obtained a license from a land company to cut timber from its land, knowing at the time the superior rights of plaintiff lumber company, and such license is revoked, defendant will be enjoined from further cutting and removing lumber.

2. Plaintiff, being a stranger to the contract between defendant and the land company, may by parol evidence show the true meaning and scope thereof.

E. E. Holland and S. D. Davies, for appellant.

White & Garnett and Geo. Mcintosh, for appellee.

Hinton, J. This is a controversy between the appellant and nppellee as to the right of the former to cut timber in that part of the Dismal swamp which, from its proximity to Suffolk, is known as the "Suffolk Side" of the swamp. The appeal is taken from a decree of the circuit court of Nansemond county, which perpetuates the injunction previously awarded, and allows the defendant, Bruce, "to remove from the lands in the bill and proceedings mentioned an the timber which he had cut thereon prior to the 14th day of August, 1886, that being the date on which he received notice from the Dismal Swamp Land Company to cease cutting on said lands. * * *" This decree, we think, after repeated and careful examinations of the record, and the able argument presented for the appellant, should be sustained; because we are satisfied that, no matter what may be the rights, if any, of the said Bruce, under his contract, to cut "down and refuse lumber, "those rights were to be taken in subordination to the rights of the John L. Roper Lumber Company, and never were intended to extend to the cutting of the juniper and cypress lumber, except as a subcontrator of that company. Without going into a detailed statement of all the testimony upon these points, we think it sufficient to say all this fully appears, not only from the testimony of Loyall, Herring, and Roper, but from the testimony and acts of Bruce as well; for, after having waited some time, according to his own admission, to find out from Roper's own lips what were the rights of John L. Roper Lumber Company, and whether they had been surrendered so far as the Suffolk side of the swamp, thus impliedly admitting that, whatever those rights were, he knew that they were superior to his own, he nevertheless, without having seen Roper, went...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Durlacher v. Frazer
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 17 Diciembre 1898
    ... ... Affirmed ... C. E ... Carpenter and John W. Lacey, for plaintiff in error ... Insolvency ... is to be ... 395; Fonda v ... Burton (Vt.), 22 A. 594; Bruce v. Lumber Co ... (Va.), 13 S.E. 153; 62 Iowa 212; 119 Mass. 99; 10 N.H ... ...
  • Harriss, Magill Co. v. Rodgers Co.
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • 1 Octubre 1925
    ...a third party and one of the parties to the written instrument. Rosella Commonwealth, 110 Va. 235, 65 S.E. 526; Bruce Roper Lumber Co., 87 Va. 381, 13 S.E. 153, 24 Am.St.Rep. 657. In the case of Follinsbee Sawyer, 157 N.Y. 196, 51 N.E. 994, a real estate agent sued for his commissions on ne......
  • Harriss v. John H. Rodgers & Co
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • 1 Octubre 1925
    ...party and one of the parties to the written instrument. Roselle v. Commonwealth, 110 Va. 235, 65 S. E. 526; Bruce v. Roper Eumber Co., 87 Va. 381, 13 S. E. 153, 24 Am. St. Rep. 657. In the case of Folinsbee v. Sawyer, 157 N. Y. 196, 51 N. E. 994, a real estate agent sued for his commissions......
  • McComb v. McComb
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • 14 Octubre 1983
    ...v. Commonwealth, 110 Va. 235, 65 S.E. 526 (1909), aff'd 223 U.S. 716, 32 S.Ct. 522, 56 L.Ed. 627 (1912); Bruce v. The John L. Roper Lumber Co., 87 Va. 381, 13 S.E. 153 (1891). In Poff & Co. we stated the principle and the rationale that undergirds It is well settled that the parol evidence ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT