Clinchfield Coal Corp. v. Hayter
Supreme Court of Virginia
Error to a judgment of the Circuit Court of Russell county in an action of trespass oil the case. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant assigns error. The opinion states the case.
1Opinion of the CourtBurks, J.
[1] The plaintiff (Hayter) claims that the defendant cut and removed from the former’s land eighteen trees and branded 135 trees, seriously injuring them. The defendant admitted branding the 135 trees on plaintiff’s land, but denied that any injury resulted from the branding, and also denied that any trees were cut on the plaintiff’s land. There was a sharp conflict between the evidence for the plaintiff and that for the defendant on the matters denied by the defendant. There was also a sharp conflict between the testimony for the two parties as to the value of the trees alleged to have been…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- W. S. Forbes & Co. v. Southern Cotton Oil Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1921
- Stonega Coke & Coal Co v. AddingtonSupreme Court of Virginia · 1911
- Colby v. ReamsSupreme Court of Virginia · 1909
3Cited by5 opinions
- Cooper v. HornSupreme Court of Virginia · 1994
- Davis v. McCallSupreme Court of Virginia · 1922
- Beckett v. Bundick (In Re Bundick)District Court, E.D. Virginia · 2003
- Petherbridge v. Princess Anne CountySupreme Court of Virginia · 1923
- Rosenberg v. StoneSupreme Court of Virginia · 1933