Hatchell v. Kimbrough

Citation49 N.C. 163,4 Jones 163
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
Decision Date31 December 1856

Where a person had rented a place to another to make a crop, in which they were to go halves, the owner furnishing a horse, it was Held to be a tenancy, and the tenant might bring trespass against his landlord for forcibly entering and breaking his close.

Where the loss of an eye was the direct and immediate consequence of exposure to which the plaintiff was subjected by removing the roof of his house, it was Held that it might be considered by the jury in aggravation of damages in the action of trespass, q. c. f.

This was an ACTION of TRESPASS, q. c. f., tried before PERSON, J., at the Fall Term, 1856, of Caswell Superior Court.

The declaration alleged a trespass in breaking the defendant's close, and tearing away the roof of her house, by which she was exposed to intense cold, which caused her much suffering and disease, and resulted in the loss of one of her eyes.

The proof was that the defendant caused his slaves to go to the house in which the plaintiff lived with her children, and throw off the roof of the house, and haul it away in his wagon; that very severe weather ensued shortly thereafter; that on the same evening, it commenced snowing, and the plaintiff got some rails and laid them on the joists, upon which she spread some quilts to keep out the snow; that the ground remained covered with snow for three or four weeks; that soon after the roof was taken off the plaintiff took a cold which fell into her eye, which was lost by the effect of the disease.

The plaintiff proved further, that the house and plantation around it had been rented to the plaintiff for the year; that she was to pay as rent one half of the crop, and that the defendant was to furnish a horse towards helping to make it.

The Court charged the jury, that if the evidence was true, the action was properly brought, and the plaintiff was entitled to recover.

As to damages, his Honor instructed the jury that, if they were satisfied that the plaintiff took cold, and the loss of her eye was the direct and immediate consequence to which she was subjected by having the roof of her house taken off, it was proper to consider that in aggravation of the damages. The defendant's counsel excepted.

Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and appeal by the defendant.

S. P. Hill and Bailey, for plaintiff .

Morehead, for defendant .


1. The action was well brought. The plaintiff was in possession as lessee for years. The circumstance that the defendant, who was the lessor, furnished the plaintiff...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Va.-carolina Peanut Co v. Atl. Coast Line R. R
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • May 3, 1911
    ...naturally and proximately from the trespass. Johnson v. Railroad, supra; Gwaltney v. Timber Co., 115 N. C. 579, 20 S. E. 465; Hatchell v. Klmbrough, 49 N. C. 163. In an action based upon such a tort, reasonable foresight is essential to original liability, but it has no place in determining......
  • Virginia-Carolina Peanut Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • May 3, 1911
    ... ... Johnson v ... Railroad, supra; Gwaltney v. Timber Co., 115 N.C ... 579, 20 S.E. 465; Hatchell v. Kimbrough, 49 N.C ... 163. In an action based upon such a tort, reasonable ... foresight is essential to original liability, but it has no ... ...
  • Kirby v. Jules Chain Stores Corporation
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • December 16, 1936
    ... ... Clark, 148 N.C. 364, 62 S.E. 418, 19 ... L.R.A. (N.S.) 1033, 16 Ann.Cas. 73; Stewart v. Lbr ... Co., 146 N.C. 47, 59 S.E. 545; Hatchell v ... Kimbrough, 49 N.C. 163; McClees v. Sikes, 46 ... N.C. 310; Loubz v. Hafner, 12 N.C. 185; State v ... Hinson, 83 N.C. 640; State v ... ...
  • Suggs v. Carroll, 8513SC79
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • September 3, 1985
    ...to permit the jury to find, as it did, that plaintiff suffered any injury entitling her to compensatory damages. In Hatchell v. Kimbrough, 49 N.C. 163, 165 (1856), our Supreme Court held that a plaintiff could properly recover for "any consequence which naturally flows from an unlawful act.......
  • 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