Opinion

Woody v. Timber Co.

  • 141 N.C. 471
Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Filed
May 22, 1906
Status
Published
Author
Brown
On the bench
Brown
Cited by
3 cases
Authority
More cited than 66.8%

The opinion

Brown, J.

It is contended that the deed is void under the authority of Hobbs’ case, 128 N. C., 46 . The instrument construed in that case is unlike this in every respect. This is an absolute conveyance of so many trees marked and branded, and contains no clause limiting the time within which they may be removed. It is possible the courts may so construe the meaning of the deed as to require the grantee or those claiming under him to remove the trees within some reasonable time. Bunch v. Lumber Co., 134 N. C., 116 . But as it is plain that the time within which the defendant may enter and remove the trees has not yet expired, the injunction was properly dissolved.

If the plaintiff desires to clear the land, he may give the six months’ notice required in the instrument and compel the removal of the trees, or he may deaden them with impunity.

Affirmed.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.