The opinion
Adams,
J.
It is alleged in tbe complaint that on 17 February, 1916, I. D. Royal and bis wife executed and delivered to tbe plaintiff a deed conveying certain timber situated on tbe land therein described, and that after tbe registration of tbe deed these grantors conveyed a part of said land to tbe defendant. It is also alleged that for the purpose of acquiring title to a portion of tbe plaintiff’s timber tbe defendant has endeavored to binder and delay tbe plaintiff in removing it, and to this
*249
end bas threatened and intimidated the plaintiff’s employees, and with evil intent bas bad one of them arrested and prosecuted for air alleged breach of the criminal law, and otherwise bas wrongfully obstructed the plaintiff’s right of removal. The defendant denies the material allegations of the complaint, and alleges that the plaintiff has wrongfully cut and removed a large quantity of timber of dimensions smaller than the plaintiff’s deed specifies, and has otherwise damaged the land.
It is unnecessary to analyze the testimony of the plaintiff’s witnesses, which covers about twenty-four pages of the record; but a careful perusal of the evidence considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff leads us to the conclusion that the jury should have been permitted to determine the controversy between the parties.
Daniels v. R. R.,
136 N. C., 517 ;
Freeman v. Brown,
151 N. C., 111 ;
Morton v. Dumber Co.,
152 N. C., 54 ;
Christman v. Hilliard,
167 N. C., 4 ;
Collins v. Casualty Co.,
172 N. C., 543 ;
Bush v. McPherson,
176 N. C., 563 ;
Newby v. Realty Co.,
182 N. C., 34 . The judgment of nonsuit is reversed, and this will be certified for further proceedings.
Reversed.