Williams v. Parsons
| Citation | 83 S.E. 914,167 N.C. 529 |
| Decision Date | 23 December 1914 |
| Docket Number | 531. |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. PARSONS ET AL. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
Appeal from Superior Court, Wilkes County; J. L. Webb, Judge.
Action by A. B. Williams against S. C. Parsons and another. From a judgment for defendant S. C. Parsons, after a nonsuit as to the other defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and new trial granted.
Where one claiming under a deed of standing timber, to be cut and removed within a specified time, was prevented from cutting timber, he could recover the profits of timber which he could have cut and removed.
This action was to enforce the enjoyment of an estate in standing timber claimed by plaintiff on the land of S. C. Parsons, and for damages for wrongful interference with same. Defendant denied liability, and set up a counterclaim against plaintiff for wrongfully cutting a part of the timber. On issues submitted, the jury rendered the following verdict:
"(1) Did the defendant S. C. Parsons unlawfully and willfully prevent the plaintiff from cutting and removing the timber from the land in dispute, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: No.
(2) And, if so, what damage, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendant S. C. Parsons? Answer: Nothing.
(3) Did the plaintiff, A. B. Williams, unlawfully and willfully enter upon the lands in controversy and cut and remove the timber from same, as alleged in answer? Answer: No.
(4) And, if so, what damages is the defendant S. C. Parsons entitled to recover? Answer: Nothing."
The verdict, as stated, was rendered under a charge of the court that, if the jury believed the evidence, they would answer the first issue, "No," and second issue "Nothing."
Judgment on the verdict for defendant, and plaintiff excepted and appealed.
Hackett & Gilreath, of Wilkesboro, for appellant.
T. C Bowie, of Jefferson, for appellees.
On the trial there was evidence offered tending to show that S. C Parsons owned the land, and in 1904 conveyed the standing timber thereon of specified kind and dimensions to H. O Parsons, and he, in 1906, conveyed the same to W. S. Morrison, giving the right to cut and remove the timber for five years or until July 5, 1911; that in December, 1906, A. B. Williams & Co. obtained a judgment against W. S. Morrison, and same was duly docketed in Wilkes county January, 1907, and was revived by order of clerk March 28, 1911; that in May, 1911, pursuant to levy duly made, the sheriff of Wilkes county sold said interest and estate of W. S. Morrison, and conveyed same by deed to plaintiff. There are also facts in evidence tending to show that, in August or September, 1906, before the docketing of plaintiff's judgment, W. S. Morrison had executed a mortgage on said land to the International Supply Company and that, subsequent to the docketing of plaintiff's judgment, both this company and W. S. Morrison, by separate deeds, had conveyed all their right, title, and interests in the timber to John F. Stone et al., trustees, the International Harvester Company having assigned the mortgage, and also executed a conveyance of their interest in the property to said Stone in 1909. The rights, legal and equitable, if any, of John F. Stone are not presented in the record, and, as the judgment under which plaintiff purchased, docketed in 1906, constituted a valid lien on the equity of redemption of W. S. Morrison in this timber, the case is presented as between the purchaser of that interest and S. C. Parsons, the owner of the land, subject to the rights existent under these timber deeds.
Plaintiff then, holding or claiming title under the sheriff's deed, offered evidence to show that, in May, 1911, he hired some hands, who commenced cutting the timber; that defendant S. C. Parsons at first made no objection, but showed plaintiff the boundary lines of the property, saying he would "neither tell plaintiff to go on or keep off," but that a few days later he commenced interfering with the work, and by threats and indictments, etc., he so harassed and intimidated plaintiff's hands that plaintiff could not induce them to go on with the work nor get others to take their place, and was prevented from cutting the timber or exercising his right thereunder until his time expired by the limitations of his deed; that he could have cut the whole or greater part of the timber if he had not been wrongfully interfered with by defendant before the limitations contained in the deeds would have expired, which was in July following.
These facts, if accepted by the jury, permit the inference that the legal rights and interests of plaintiff in this timber have been wrongfully interfered with by defendant,...
To continue reading
Request your trial