Harker v. Seawell
A. J. HARKER v. LESTER C. SEAWELL
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
DUNN, J.
This action was brought by respondent to recover damages resulting from a trespass by appellant in grazing certain sheep on the land of respondent and to ob *458 tain an injunction restraining appellant from further trespass.
Although shown to be in actual possession of the lands in controversy, respondent failed to show that, as to all of the land in controversy, he was either the owner or entitled to the possession thereof. Appellant éontends that there can be no right of recovery unless respondent shbws either ownership or right of possession of the land. In this appellant is in error. He is a trespasser and as against him simple possession under a claim of right is sufficient to support the action. In the case of Sanson v. Seawell, ante, p. 92, 204 Pac. 660 , this court said: “As against a mere tort-feasor, actual possession of land, under a claim of right is sufficient to maintain trespass,” citing numerous cases.
We have' examined the record with care and while we find respondent to have suffered damage at the hands of appellant, the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict for $600. The judgment is therefore reversed, with costs to appellant.
Rice, C. J., and McCarthy, J., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.