Dougherty v. Stepp

• Citation: 18 N.C. 372
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decision Date: 31 December 1835
• Parties: JOHN DOUGHERTY v. WILLIAM STEPP.

18 N.C. 372

JOHN DOUGHERTY

v.WILLIAM STEPP.

SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

DECEMBER TERM, 1835.

Every unauthorized intrusion into the land of another is a sufficient trespass to support an action for breaking the close, whether the land be actually enclosed or not. And from every such entry the law infers some damage; if nothing more, the treading down the grass or shrubbery.

TRESPASS QUARE CLAUSUM FREGIT, tried at BUNCOMBE, on the last circuit, before his Honor, Judge Martin, The only proof introduced by the plaintiff to establish an act of trespass was, that the defendant had entered on the unenclosed land of the plaintiff, with a surveyor and chain-carriers, and actually surveyed a part of it, claiming it as his own, but without marking trees or cutting bushes. This, his Honor held not to be a trespass, and the jury, under his instructions, found a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.

Mendenhall, for the plaintiff, contended, that every unwarrantable entry on another man's soil is considered a trespass by breaking his close; for that in contemplation of law every man's land is separated and set apart from his neighbor's by either a material or invisible and ideal boundary, and that every entry carries with it some damage—if no other, the treading down and bruising the herbage and shrubbery. That whenever a man has a right to enclose his estate, by a real substantial fence, the law regards it as already enclosed against the unauthorized intrusion of his neighbor. In illustration and support of these positions, he cited 3 Bl. Com., 209. 6 Bac. Abr., 581, title Trespass. McKenzie v. Hulet, 4 N. C., 613. Hammond's N. Prius, 151, 152. Dyer, 225, b. pl., 40.

RUFFIN, C. J. In the opinion of the Court, there is error in the instructions given to the jury. The amount of damages may depend on the acts done on the land, and the extent of injury to it therefrom. But it is an elementary principle that every unauthorized, and therefore unlawful, entry into the close of another, is a trespass. From every

such entry against the will of the possessor the law infers some damage; if nothing more, the treading down the grass or the herbage, or as here, the shrubbery. Had the locus in quo been under cultivation or enclosed, there would have been no doubt of the plaintiff's right to recover. Now, our Courts have for a long time past held, that if there be no adverse possession, the title makes the land the owner's close. Making the survey and marking...