Opinion · Nclaw North Carolina
SHEPPARD v. SHEPPARD, 3 N.C. 382 (1806)
SHEPPARD & OTHERS v. SHEPPARD'S WIDOW., 3 N.C. 382 (Superior Court of North Carolina 1806)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Nclaw North Carolina
- Jurisdiction
- Nclaw
- Date
- 1806-01-01
- Topic
- general
SHEPPARD v. SHEPPARD, 3 N.C. 382 (1806) SHEPPARD AND OTHERS v. SHEPPARD'S WIDOW.Superior Court of North Carolina (Spring Riding, 1806.) That only is to be considered waste, which is substantially an injury to the inheritance: Therefore if the jury, in an action of waste, find insignificant damages, judgment shall be arrested. PLAINTIFFS, as heirs at law of their ancestor, sued defendant, as tenant in dower, for waste done on about 40 acres, part of her dower lands; and the jury found that waste was done as they had declared, and assessed damages to sixpence. Whereupon it was moved in arrest of judgment that where such small damages were assessed, the Court could not consider it as such waste for which an action would lie; and defendant's counsel stated the law to be that the Court could not adjudge any destruction to be legally a waste unless it amounted to something considerable; and he cited 2 Bos.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed SHEPPARD v. SHEPPARD, 3 N.C. 382 (1806). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
SHEPPARDv. SHEPPARD,3 N.C. 382(1806)
SHEPPARD AND OTHERS v. SHEPPARD'S WIDOW.
Superior Court of North Carolina
That only is to be considered waste, which is substantially an injury to the inheritance: Therefore if the jury, in an action of waste, find insignificant damages, judgment shall be arrested.
PLAINTIFFS, as heirs at law of their ancestor, sued defendant, as tenant in dower, for waste done on about 40 acres, part of her dower lands; and the jury found that waste was done as they had declared, and assessed damages tosixpence. Whereupon it was moved in arrest of judgment that where such small damages were assessed, the Court could not consider it as such waste for which an action would lie; and defendant's counsel stated the law to be that the Court could notPage 334adjudge any destruction to be legally a waste unless it amounted to something considerable; and he cited 2 Bos. Pull., 86, and the cases there cited, viz., Fitz. Ab. Waste, p. 111, 123; Co. Litt., 54 a; 2 Inst., 306; Cro. C., 414, 452; Finch Law Lib. 1, ch. 3, sec. 34; 3 Bl. C., 228; Viner, Ab. Title Waste n.; Bull. N. P., 120.
HALL, J. (after taking till the last day of the term to consider of the authorities):
The authorities cited are strong to the point for which they were cited, nor do I conceive them unreasonable. Where waste of insignificant value is done scatteredly through a whole tract, the tenant must lost the place wasted; and this is too heavy a penalty where the damage is to the amount only of a small sum. That ought only to be considered waste which is substantially an injury to the inheritance.
Judgment arrested.Cited: Shine v. Wilcox,21 N.C. 632;King v. Miller,99 N.C. 595;Sherrill v. Connor,107 N.C. 633;Thomas v. Thomas,166 N.C. 629.