Dougherty v. Stepp
| Dougherty v. Stepp | |
|---|---|
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Decided | 1835 |
| Citation | 18 N.C. 371, 1 Devereux & Battle 371 |
| Case opinions | |
| Every unauthorized, and therefore unlawful entry, into the close of another, is a trespass. From every illegal entry onto another's land, the law infers some damages, even if only the nominal damages of treading down the grass, herbage, or shrubbery. | |
| Decision by | Thomas Ruffin |
Dougherty v. Stepp, 18 N.C. 371 (N.C. 1835) is a decision of the North Carolina Supreme Court authored by Chief Justice Thomas Ruffin. For at least a century, this case has been used in first-year Torts classes in American law schools to teach students about the tort of trespass upon real property.[1]
Background
[edit]Stepp incorrectly believed that certain unenclosed land belonging to Doughterty belonged to him. Stepp therefore entered the unenclosed land with a surveyor and chain carriers, who began surveying the land.[2] Before they had marked any trees or cut any bushes, Dougherty challenged their actions.[2]
Dougherty then brought suit against Stepp for trespass quare clausum fregit.[2] A trial was held in Buncombe before Judge Martin. Judge Martin held that since Stepp, the defendant, had not damaged Dougherty's land in any way, Stepp had not committed a trespass.[2] He therefore directed the jury to find for the defendant.[2]
Dougherty then appealed this ruling to the North Carolina Supreme Court.[2] Dougherty's lawyer argued that every unwarrantable entering on another's real property constituted a trespass, even if the defendant mistakenly believed that the land belonged to him.[2] He also argued that every trespass involves some damage to the property, even if it is only the treading down and bruising of the herbage and shrubbery.[2] Stepp's lawyer did not appear before the North Carolina Supreme Court.[2]
Opinion of the Court
[edit]In a per curiam decision authored by Chief Justice Ruffin, the Court granted the plaintiff's appeal.[2] The court found that it was error for the trial court to hold that Stepp's actions did not constitute a trespass.[2] The court held that "every unauthorised, and therefore unlawful entry, into the close of another, is a trespass."[2] From every illegal entry onto another's land, the law infers some damages, even if only the nominal damages of treading down the grass, herbage, or shrubbery.[2]
The court therefore granted the appeal and remanded the case for a new trial.