Grim v. . Wicker
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Civil Action in the nature of Trover, tried at Fall Term, 1878, of Moore Superior Court, before Buxton, J. The defendant, John M. Monger, and one Richardson, had. been tenants in common of a turpentine still, the property in dispute. Richardson sold his interest in the same to the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Civil Action in the nature of Trover, tried at Fall Term, 1878, of Moore Superior Court, before Buxton, J. The defendant, John M. Monger, and one Richardson, had. been tenants in common of a turpentine still, the property in dispute. Richardson sold his interest in the same to the plaintiff. The defendant, Monger, obtained a judgment against Richardson and issued an execution thereon to the other defendant, Wicker, who was sheriff of Moore county, and directed him to levy on Richardson’s interest in the still; and upon his giving Wicker a bond of indemnity, he took the still, cutting a chain…
1Opinion of the CourtAshe, J.
(After stating the case.) It is a well established principle of law that one tenant in common of a chattel cannot sue the other for a conversion. Moye v. ........., 2 Hay. 186; Campbell v. Campbell, 2 Mur., 65; Bonner v. Latham, 1 Ire., 271 ; Pitt v. Petway, 12 Ire., 69.
The only exceptions to this principle are where the property is destroyed, carried beyond the limits of the state, or when being of a perishable nature such a disposition of it is made as to prevent the other from recovering it. Lucas v. Wasson, 3 Dev., 398; Lowthorp v. Smith, 1 Hay., 255.
• A petition for the division of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Powell v. . HillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1870
3Cited by10 opinions
- Huntington v. PerrinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
- McPheeters v. WrightIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
- Moore v. . EureSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1888
- Barham v. . PerrySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1933
- Dubose v. HarpeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.