Berry v. Richmond Cedar Works
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal by plaintiff from Daniels, J., at January Term, 1922, of TYRRELL. Civil action. Tbe issues were answered as follows: “1. Are plaintiffs owners and entitled to possession of tbe lands described in tbe complaint? Answer: ‘Yes.’ “2. Did defendant Richmond Cedar Works wrongfully and unlawfully trespass upon same? Answer: ‘Yes.’ “3. What damage, if any, has plaintiff sustained? Answer: ‘One cent.’ ” Judgment for plaintiffs; appeal by defendant.
1Opinion of the CourtAdaMS, J.
Tbe action was brought to recover damages for alleged trespass, but as tbe defendant admitted possession and tbe removal of timber, tbe controversy was practically confined to tbe first issue. Tbe plaintiffs introduced a grant to Josiab Collins, dated 9 July, 1796, a deed from W. E. and H. L. Coboon to E. N. Hussey, dated 28 November, 1883, and mesne conveyances to tbe plaintiffs. Failing to exhibit a connected chain of title from tbe State, tbe plaintiffs undertook to establish their right to recover by showing adverse possession for seven years under known and visible lines and boundaries…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Triplett v. . WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
- Rowland v. . RowlandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1885
- Doe on Demise of Tate's Heirs v. SouthardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1824
- Hafner v. . IrwinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1838
- Seals v. SealsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Seals v. . SealsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
- City of Gastonia v. ParrishSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
- Flake v. Board of CommissionersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
- Gahagan v. GosnellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967