Hinson v. . Hinson

27 S.E. 80, 120 N.C. 400
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided February 5, 1897·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Faieoloth, C. J.:

The plaintiffs and defendants are tenants in common of the locus in quo, except the defendant, Millie, who has a life estate, as doweress, in the same. The action is for waste committed by the defendants. It is agreed that defendants have cut down trees for cross ties and hauled them off the land. His Honor was of opinion that plaintiffs, being co-tenants with defendants, could not recover in this action, and that their remedy was by account. However this may have been at common law, our Statute expressly authorizes this action in a case like the present. The Code, Section 627.

Error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hinson v. . Hinson, 27 S.E. 80, 120 N.C. 400 (N.C. 1897).

27 S.E. 80 (Hinson v. . Hinson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Daniel v. Tallassee Power Co.
168 S.E. 217 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1933)
Nevels v. Kentucky Lumber Co.
108 Ky. 550 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1900)
Morrison v. . Morrison
29 S.E. 901 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1898)