Millen v. . Harvey

1 N.C. 639
Court of King's Bench·Decided July 5, 1793·Published

Opinions

The justification here is good. He might chase the sheep that were on his ground. 4 Rep. Tyrringham's case, and if the dog pursues the sheep on their owner's land, contra voluntatem of the other, it is no trespass. 38 E., 3, 10 b. I.S. found a pheasant on his ground, and let a falcon fly at him, and the hawk took the pheasant on the land of I.D., who brought trespass for the entry of I.S. Held that it lies. The same in 6 F., 4, 7. One cuts trees on his own land, they *Page 640 fall on his neighbor's, he goes there and takes them, trespass lies; otherwise if they had been blown down by the wind. But this case differs from those.

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

Millen v. . Harvey, 1 N.C. 639 (kingsbench 1793).

1 N.C. 639 (Millen v. . Harvey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kaeiser v. Illinois Cent. R.
6 F. 1 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1880)