{ "id": 11273243, "name": "A. B. WILLIAMS v. S. C. PARSONS and H. O. PARSONS", "name_abbreviation": "Williams v. Parsons", "decision_date": "1914-12-23", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "529", "last_page": "532", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "167 N.C. 529" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "165 N. C., 46", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8657061 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/165/0046-01" ] }, { "cite": "70 N. C., 601", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8698543 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/70/0601-01" ] }, { "cite": "94 N. C., 261", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8650859 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/94/0261-01" ] }, { "cite": "137 N. C., 670", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8657390 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/137/0670-01" ] }, { "cite": "139 N. C., 160", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652240 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/139/0160-01" ] }, { "cite": "140 N. C., 467", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "145 N. C., 88", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "154 N. C., 229", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "154 N. C., 248", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652116 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/154/0248-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 519, "char_count": 10819, "ocr_confidence": 0.462, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.6887124196743154e-07, "percentile": 0.6987119712384776 }, "sha256": "35041db93e814f33db171db0cf0f2dd41d7be245fb220f9aceae0ca9b1e977d4", "simhash": "1:22c0373298c2c844", "word_count": 1903 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:55:31.572596+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "A. B. WILLIAMS v. S. C. PARSONS and H. O. PARSONS." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Hoke, J.\nOn tbe trial there was evidence offered tending to show that S.0. Parsons, who owned tbe land, in 1904 conveyed tbe standing timber thereon of specified kind and dimensions to H. 0. Parsons, and be, in 1906, conveyed tbe same to W. S. Morrison, giving tbe right to cut and remove tbe timber for five years or until 5 July, 1911; in December, 1906, A. B. Williams & Oo. obtained a judgment against W. S. Morrison and same was duly docketed in Wilkes County, January, 1907, and was revived by order of clerk, 28 March, 1911; that in May, 1911, pursuant to levy duly made, tbe sheriff of Wilkes County sold said interest and estate of W. S. Morrison and conveyed same by deed to plaintiff. There are also facts in evidence tending to show that in August or September, 1906, before tbe docketing of plaintiff\u2019s judgment, W. S. Morrison bad executed a mortgage on said land to tbe International Supply Company, and that, subsequent to tbe docketing of plaintiff\u2019s judgment, both this company and W. S. Morrison, by separate deeds, bad conveyed all their right, title, and interests in tbe timber to John E. Stone et al., trustees, tbe International Harvester Company having assigned tbe mortgage and also executed a conveyance of their interest in tbe property to said Stone in 1909.\nTbe rights, legal and equitable, if any, of John E. Stone are not presented in tbe record, and, as tbe judgment under which plaintiff purchased, docketed in .1906, constituted a valid lien on tbe equity of redemption of W. S. Morrison in this timber, the case is presented as between the purchaser of that interest and S. C. Parsons, the owner of the land, subject to the rights existent under these timber deeds.\nPlaintiff, then, holding or claiming title under the sheriff\u2019s deed, offered evidence to show that,, in May, 1911, he hired some hands, who commenced cutting the timber; that defendant S. C. Parsons at first made no objection, but showed plaintiff the boundary lines of the property, saying he would \u201cneither tell plaintiff to go on or keep off,\u201d but that a few days later he commenced interfering with the work, and by threats and indictments, etc., he so harassed and intimidated plaintiff\u2019s hands that plaintiff could not induce them to go on with the work nor get others to take their place, and was prevented from cutting the timber or exercising his right thereunder until his time expired by the limitations of his deed; that he could have cut the whole or greater part of the timber if he had not been wrongfully interfered with by defendant before the limitations contained in the deeds would have expired, which was in July following.\nThese facts, if accepted by the jury, permit the inference that the legal rights and interests of plaintiff in this timber have been wrongfully interfered with by defendant, causing substantial damages to same \u2014 an injury which may result in the entire loss of his estate and giving a right to recover for the whole or a part of the amount, as the facts may disclose.\nWe have held in numerous cases that these deeds for standing timber, as ordinarily drawn, convey a fee-simple interest in such timber as realty, determinable as to \u00bf11 such timber as is not cut and removed within the time specified in the deed, and that, while such estate exists, it is clothed with the same attributes and subject to the same laws of devolution and transfer as other interests in realty. Bateman v. Lumber Co., 154 N. C., 248; Hornthal v. Howcott, 154 N. C., 229; Midgette v. Grubbs, 145 N. C., 88; Lumber Co. v. Corey, 140 N. C., 467; Hawkins v. Lumber Co., 139 N. C., 160. This being true, we now see no reason why the sheriff\u2019s deed did not convey to plaintiff the interest of W. S. Morrison, at least the equity of redemption existent at the time the judgment was docketed, in January, 1907, and giving him the present right to enter and cut the timber for the remaining period of time as against every one whose interests are now before the court. Mayo v. Staten, 137 N. C., 670; Revisal 1905, sec. 629.\nAt the time of his entry in May, he had still the right to enter and cut for a month and seven days, until 5 July, 1911, and if such interest has been wrongfully interfered with by defendant, giving him a right to legal redress, he may recover for the damages done attributable to defendant\u2019s wrong.\nTbe estate having expired by limitation on the facts as presented, relief by ejectment or mandatory injunction may not now be open to him; but he is entitled to the present pecuniary value of his interest, and may recover, in any event, for the profits of all timber which he might have cut and removed within the time, using the means then at hand or reasonably available to him. McEllwee v. Blackwell, 94 N. C., 261; Haskins v. Royster, 70 N. C., 601; Carew v. Rutherford, 106 Mass., pp. 10 and 11; 1 Comyn\u2019s Digest, p. 272.\nIn Haskins' case, supra, Rodman, J., quotes with approval from Comyn\u2019s Digest as follows: \u201cAction on the case, A, p. 272: In all cases where a man has a temporal loss or damage by the wrong of another, he may have an action upon the case to be repaired in damages.\u201d And in Garew\u2019s case, Chapman, C. J., cites with approval Bacon\u2019s Abridgment, Actions in the case, E: \u201cIf A, being a mason and using to sell stones, is possessed of a certain stone pit, and B, intruding to discredit it and deprive him of the profits of his said mine, imposes so great threats upon his workmen and disturbs all comers, threatening to maim and vex them with suits if they buy stones, so that some desist from working and others from buying, A shall have an action on the case against B, for the profit of his mine is thereby impaired.\u201d And further : \u201cThe illustrations given,- in formal terms, relate to such methods of doing injury to others as were then practiced and to the kinds of remedy then existing; but if new methods of doing injury are invented in modern times, the same principles must be applied to them in order that peaceable citizens may be protected in the enjoyment of their rights and privileges and existing forms of remedy must be used.\u201d\nIt is urged for defendant that plaintiff, a purchaser at execution sale, is required to first assert his claim by action; the possession of defendant being regarded as adverse. There is doubt if the principle applies to a case like the present, where a separate interest has been created by deed conveying timber, as there is no reason why the occupation of one is not consistent with possession by the other. (Jefferson v. Lumber Co., 165 N. C., 46) ; but if the position be conceded, it may not avail the defendant here, as the testimony shows plaintiff was in the possession and enjoyment of his right-when he was interfered with by the wrong of the defendant.\nThere is error, and the cause must be submitted to the jury.\nNew trial. \u25a0", "type": "majority", "author": "Hoke, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Haclcett & Gilreath for plaintiff.", "T. 0. Bowie for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "A. B. WILLIAMS v. S. C. PARSONS and H. O. PARSONS.\n(Filed 23 December, 1914.)\n1. Timber Deeds \u2014 Realty\u2014Incidents of Timber Interests.'\nA conveyance of timber growing upon lands, as ordinarily drawn, conveys a fee-simple interest in such timber, is realty, and determinable as to all such timber not cut and removed within the time specified in the deed; and while such estate exists it is clothed with the same attributes and subject to the same laws of devolution and transfer as other interests in realty.\n2. Same \u2014 Judicial Sales \u2014 Interference by Owner of Land \u2014 Damages\u2014Evidence \u2014 Profits.\nThe interest of a grantee in a timber deed is subject to execution and sale under a judgment obtained against him by his creditor, and the purchaser at such sale has the right to cut and remove the timber upon the terms and conditions and within the period specified in the deed; and in an action to recover damages against the owner of the lands for interfering with this right, it is competent for the purchaser to show by his evidence that he could have cut the whole or the greater part of the timber within the remaining period allowed under the terms and conditions of the timber deed, had not the defendant by his acts, threats, and other conduct wrongfully prevented him, and recovery may be had for the profits of all the timber which he might have cut and removed within the time, except for the acts of the defendant, using the means then at hand or reasonably available to him.\n3. Timber Deed \u2014 Judicial Sales \u2014 Time for Cutting, Etc. \u2014 Expiration\u2014Ejectment \u2014 Injunction.\nWhere the rights of a purchaser at a judicial sale of the interest of a grantee in a conveyance of standing timber has been wrongfully interfered with by the owner of the land, and the time for cutting and removing the timber under the terms of the deed has expired, relief by ejectment or mandatory injunction is not available.\n4. Deeds and Conveyances \u2014 Timber Deeds \u2014 Adverse Possession \u2014 Admitted Into Possession \u2014 Possessory Action.\nSemble, the possession of land by the owner is not regarded as adverse to the claim of a vendee of the timber growing thereon, under a separate deed, or to a purchaser 'of his title to the timber at an execution sale thereof, nothing else appearing; and under the circumstances of this case, it appearing that the purchaser at the execution sale was admitted into the possession by the owner of the lands, and thereafter was prevented by the owner of the lands from exercising his rights under his timber deed, it is held that the position is not available to the -owner of the lands that his possession put the purchaser to his action therefor.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Webb, J., at March Term, 1914, of \"Wilkes.\nCivil action to enforce the enjoyment of an estate in standing timber claimed by plaintiff on the land of S. C. Parsons and for damages for wrongful interference with same.\nDefendant denied liability and set up a counterclaim against plaintiff for wrongfully cutting a part of tbe timber.\nOn issues submitted, tbe jury rendered tbe following verdict:\n1. Did tbe defendant S. 0. Parsons unlawfully and willfully prevent tbe plaintiffs from cutting and removing tbe timber from tbe land in dispute, as alleged in tbe complaint? Answer: \u201cNo.\u201d\n2. And if so, wbat damage, if any, is tbe plaintiff entitled to recover of tbe defendant S. 0. Parsons? Answer: \u201cNothing.\u201d\n3. Did tbe plaintiff A. B. Williams unlawfully and willfully enter upon tbe lands in controversy and cut and remove tbe timber from same, as alleged in answer? Answer: \u201cNo.\u201d\n4. And if so, wbat damages is tbe defendant 8. 0. Parsons entitled to recover? Answer: \u201cNothing.\u201d\nTbe verdict as stated was rendered under a charge of tbe court that if tbe jury believed tbe evidence they would answer tbe first issue \u201cNo\u201d and second issue \u201cNothing.\u201d\nJudgment on tbe verdict for defendant, and plaintiff excepted and appealed.\nHaclcett & Gilreath for plaintiff.\nT. 0. Bowie for defendant." }, "file_name": "0529-01", "first_page_order": 583, "last_page_order": 586 }