Hetfield v. Baum
| Decision Date | 30 June 1852 |
| Citation | 57 Am.Dec. 563,35 N.C. 394,13 Ired. 394 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | JOHN C. HETFIELD v. ABRAHAM BAUM. |
A person, who purchases goods at a wreck sale, has a right to take off his goods by the most convenient route, though, in doing so, he has to pass over the land of another, who has forbidden him to enter on or cross his land for that purpose.
In such a case, though the land has been granted by the State, a right of way is reserved, from necessity.
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Currituck County, at the Spring Term, 1852, his Honor Judge BATTLE presiding.
This was an action of trespass quare clausum fregit, to which the defendant pleaded the general issue and licence. Upon the trial, it appeared that the alleged trespass was committed upon a tract of land, to which the plaintiff showed title, and of which he was then in possession. The defendant then showed, that a brig, called the Justitia, was wrecked upon the said land, and a sale of her cargo was regularly advertised by the wreck master for the district, and that he and many other persons attended the sale, which was on the said land, and that he bought some ofthe articles at the said sale, and carted them, together with articles purchased by other persons, across the plaintiff's said land, along the most convenient route to the nearest point, where they could be put on boats on Currituck Sound, and the said route was mostly over a barren sandbank, and a small portion of marsh, all unenclosed. It appeared in testimony, that property, thus purchased on the said beach, could be taken off by means of the sea, but with much inconvenience and risk, and that it might be carried along the beach at great inconvenience, and that the shortest and most convenient route, by which the defendant could carry off the articles so purchased, was across the plaintiff's land to Currituck Sound. It appeared further, that the plaintiff and defendant had a dispute during the sale, whereupon the plaintiff forbade the defendant from carting across his land; but the defendant did afterwards cross the said land with his carts, as before stated.
The defendant's counsel contended, that as wreck sales were made under the authority of the law, every person had a right to attend them, and to carry off such articles as he might purchase, by the most convenient route across the lands of the adjacent proprietors, even though they should forbid it.
The Court instructed the jury, that, upon the facts proved, the plaintiff was entitled to recover, at least nominal damages. The fury found a verdict for nominal damages, and from the judgment thereon, the defendant appealed.
Ehringhaus, for the plaintiff .
Jordan and Smith, for the defendant .
The sovereign has a right to wrecks, and all property stranded on the sea beach: and, in many countries, this right is exercised, so as to be a source of considerable revenue.
North Carolina has a sea coast, great in extent and very dangerous: and there are probably more wrecks upon her coast during the year, than upon that of any five of the other States. She has, from a very early period, adopted a humane, liberal, and enlightened policy, in reference to wrecks, and may well challenge a comparison of her policy with that of any other nation on earth.
The whole extent of her sea coast is laid off into “wreck districts” of convenient size. It is made the duty of the Courts of Pleas and Quarter Sessions, of the several counties, in which such districts are situated, to appoint a “Commissioner of Wrecks,” in each district, who shall reside in the district, and enter into bond, with good security, in the penalty of $15,000, for the proper discharge of his duties. It is made his duty, “on the earliest intelligence” of any vessel being in danger of being stranded, or being stranded, to command the sheriff or any constable of the county, to summon as many men, as shall be thought necessary to the assistance of such vessel. If the vessel is srtanded, it is made his duty to see that the goods are collected and taken care of: should...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Pate
...thrown by the force of a storm on the beach could not walk to safety carrying their possessions without being guilty of trespass? Hetfield v. Baum, 35 N.C. 394. In an action for trespass, nothing else appearing, the issues are: (1) Plaintiff's title if denied by defendant; (2) the trespass ......
-
Smith v. Moore, 89
...96, 52 S.E.2d 1; Carmon v. Dick, 170 N.C. 305, 87 S.E. 224; Roper Lumber Co. v. Richmond Cedar Works, 158 N.C. 161, 73 S.E. 902. Hetfield v. Baum, 35 N.C. 394, presents an interesting illustration of such a way impliedly reserved. 28 C.J.S. Easements §§ 36, 38, pp. 699-701. Statutory provis......
-
State ex rel. Bruton v. Flying 'W' Enterprises, Inc., 199
...to be the king's property by the same prerogative statute 17 Edw. II, c. 11. and were so, long before, at the common law.' In Hetfield v. Baum, 35 N.C. 394, Justice Pearson said for the 'The sovereign has a right to wrecks and all property stranded on the sea beach, and in many countries th......
- Herring v. Tilghman