8 N.C. 315 | N.C. | 1821
Lead Opinion
Every principle of law and every dictate of justice combine to entitle the plaintiff to the full value of the wheat and rye taken by the defendant and to compensation for the other injuries done by him. No ground is perceived in which the verdict is exceptionable, for the defendant refused permission to the plaintiff to enter for the purpose of gathering in the crop when it should be ripe, but claimed it as his own notwithstanding his assent to the plaintiff's right when told of it by Izzard; can it be doubted, therefore, that he is justly responsible for the full value of the crop? In addition to this the defendant was a trespasser upon the plaintiff's possession, because when he entered he had received no title from Izzard.
Addendum
I think there can be no ground for a new trial; the plaintiff was in possession of the premises under a parol lease from Izzard prior to any contract entered into between Izzard and the defendant. When the defendant committed the trespass the legal title to the land had not vested in him; he had by his contract a right to enter on the land but the rights of the plaintiff *163 were not thereby impaired; he had a right under his lease to the property he had on the land as well as to the growing crop. Let the rule for a new trial be discharged.
