Surry County NcArchives Court.....Patrick Hutchins, Royal Algood V. 1819
************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarchives.net/nc/ncfiles.htm
************************************************

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Guy Potts http://www.genrecords.net/emailregistry/vols/00017.html#0004214 January 20, 2009, 9:40 am

Source: Nc Reports
Written: 1819

Royal Algood v. Patrick Hutchins

From Surry

November Term 1819

An administrator advertised and sold a tract of land; the purchaser entered 
and sowed wheat, and soon afterwards, discovering that he had acquired no 
title to the land by his purchase, the contract was rescinded, and he quit the 
possession. The administrator then sold to another man, who placed a tenant on 
the land. When the wheat was ripe, the first purchaser, who had sowed it, 
entered and cut the wheat, and the second purchaser hauled it away. Trespass 
vi et armis will lie for this injury; for, by cutting the wheat, the first 
purchaser became actually possessed of it, and the hauling of the wheat away 
was a violation of this possession.

This was an action of trespass vi et armis; plea, general issue. The Jury 
found a special verdict. The land on which the trespass was charged to have 
been committed belonged to the heirs of a man, who had died intestate, whose 
widow, together with her brother Patterson, administered on his estate. The 
widow intermarried with Cousong, and he and Patterson advertised the land for 
sale, and sold it to Pilcher, who put Algood, the Plaintiff, in possession. 
Algood, being so in possession of the land, cultivated it and sowed wheat. At 
the close of the year, it was discovered that a title could not be made to 
Algood, and the contract for the purchase by him was rescinded; and it was 
agreed between Algood and Cousong, that Algood should enter and take the wheat 
when ripe. Afterwards, Patterson sold the land to Hutchins, the Defendant. At 
the time of the sale, Algood set up his claim to the wheat then growing. 
Patterson denied that he had any right to it, and told him, if he had made any 
contract with Cousong for the wheat, he must look to Cousong for it, for 
Hutchins should take the wheat with the land. Algood, was then in possession, 
but before the wheat became ripe, he gave up the possession of the land to 
Hutchins, who placed a tenant on the land. At harvest Algood entered on the 
premises, and cut part of the wheat. Hutchins, on the same day, also cut part 
of the wheat, each claiming it. Algood gathered, tied up and shocked the wheat 
which he cut, and Hutchins took it away, and also that which he had cut; and 
this was the trespass charged in the declaration. The Jury prayed the advice 
of the Court, and judgment was given for the Plaintiff; which judgment was 
affirmed by this Court.

Hall, Judge: It does not appear from the case, that either Plaintiff or 
Defendant had any right to the land on which the wheat in question was raised. 
It was claimed first by the Plaintiff, and then by the Defendant, under the 
administrator, who, in that character, had no right to it. The lands belonged 
to certain heirs, and whatever right they might have had to the wheat, or 
whatever remedy they might have against the Plaintiff for cutting it, it is 
clear the Defendant had neither. The Plaintiff, under the sale to him, 
supposed he had a right to sow and cut the wheat. He did sow and cut 
accordingly. By cutting it, he was actually possessed of the wheat so cut, and 
the Defendant having violated this possession by carrying the wheat away, the 
Plaintiff is entitled to recover, and judgment must be given for him.


File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/nc/surry/court/patrickh757wl.txt

This file has been created by a form at http://www.poppet.org/ncfiles/

File size: 3.9 Kb