Pitts v. . Curtis
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal from Oouncill, Jat January Term, 1910, of McDowell. Civil action to recover damages for tbe cutting and removal of timber claimed by tbe plaintiff. These issues were submitted: 1. Is tbe plaintiff tbe owner of tbe timber trees sued for, as alleged ? Answer: Yes (by court). 2. Wbat damage bas plaintiff sustained by reason of tbe defendants’ cutting and removing said timber trees? Answer: $1,333. From tbe judgment rendered, tbe defendants appeal.
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.
Plaintiff claims title under a deed dated 15 January, 1901, executed by S. C. McNeely to plaintiff, purporting to convey tbe timber alleged to bave been wrongfully cut and removed by defendant Curtis. Tbe descriptive part of tbis conveyance is as follows:
“I, S. C. McNeely, of tbe first part, do tbis day sell and convey to tbe party of tbe second part all my pine, oak and poplar timber tbat tbe said J. D. Pitts may want for lumber, tbat will measure 16 incbes across stump and upward, at 40 cents per tree; all under tbat size tbat said Pitts may want, at 30 cents per tree.”
Defendant Curtis…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Blakely v. . PatrickSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1872
- Goff, Cranston & Co. v. PopeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1880
- Harris v. . WoodardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1887
- Carpenter v. . MedfordSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1888
3Cited by2 opinions
- Seguin v. Maloney-Chambers Lumber Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1953
- Seguin v. Maloney-Chambers Lumber Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1953