Floyd v. . Thomas
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This was an action of waste, tried at Spring Term, 1890, of NokthamptoN Superior Court, before Womack, J. The plaintiffs alleged as a ground for demanding damage that the defendant committed voluntary waste by cutting valuable timber trees, and also permitted the dwelling-house, stables, barns and out-houses to fall into decay for want of repairs.
Read the full summary
This was an action of waste, tried at Spring Term, 1890, of NokthamptoN Superior Court, before Womack, J. The plaintiffs alleged as a ground for demanding damage that the defendant committed voluntary waste by cutting valuable timber trees, and also permitted the dwelling-house, stables, barns and out-houses to fall into decay for want of repairs. The defendant answered that he had dealt with the land in a husbandman-like manner, and, in clearing, had been careful to observe the proper proportions which prudent owners in fee would, between cleared and wood land, observe in clearing the wood…
1Opinion of the CourtAvery, J.
after stating the facts: The defendant, after testifying on his examination in chief, that he had, as tenant-for-life of Mrs. Emily Floyd, used the land as a prudent man would his own, stated further, without objection, that at the time when it was alleged he had incurred liability for waste he believed he was the owner in fee-simple, and had exercised the same care in the management of it that he had exhibited in dealing with his own land.
The gravamen of the complaint is that the defendant unlawfully cut down and destroyed valuable timber trees. The defence is that he cut down trees in…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. . KirkmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1869
3Cited by3 opinions
- Wood v. ShoreSupreme Court of Georgia · 1925
- Gore v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982
- Piper v. AshburnSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955