McClees v. . Sikes

46 N.C. 310

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: June 5, 1854
• Status: Published

Opinion

Battle, J,

The objection to the joinder of the count for trespass vi et armis to slaves, with that for trespass quare clausum fregit to land, is clearly untenable. The form of action is the Same, requiring the same plea and judgment. The question is too plain to require any reference to authority.

We think there is very little more force in the other objection. The defendant’s conduct was certainly an unlawful interference with the plaintiffs’ slaves. He did not touch them, it is true, but his driving them off was a direct injury with force, similar to that of an assault, for which trespass vi et armis is the proper remedy. In the case of Sample v. Bell, Bus. Rep. 338, where the action was trespass on the case, there was no force, either actual or implied. The present is a much stronger case than that of Loubz v. Hafner, 1 Dev. Rep. 185, in which it was held that, where the defendant beat a drum near the highway, which caused a team of horses to run away with, and damage a wagon, trespass vi et armis was the proper action. The judgment must be afiirmed.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.