Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantdamagesnegligence
plaintiffdefendantdamagestrialverdictwill

Related Cases

Bauer v. Ventura County, 45 Cal.2d 276, 289 P.2d 1
View Case »
Williams v. Gaye, 895 F.3d 1106, 2018 Copr.L.Dec. P 31,246, 127 U.S.P.Q.2d 1517, 18 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6850, 2018 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6784
View Case »
Shindler v. Grove Hall Kosher Delicatessen & Lunch, 282 Mass. 32, 184 N.E. 673
View Case »
Backhausen v. Mayer, 204 Wis. 286, 234 N.W. 904, 74 A.L.R. 1245
View Case »
Swirsky v. Carey, 376 F.3d 841, 2004 Copr.L.Dec. P 28,852, 71 U.S.P.Q.2d 1491, 64 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1002, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6178, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8401
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Sherrill v. Connor, 107 N.C. 630, 12 S.E. 588

Facts

Henry W. Connor died intestate in 1866, leaving behind a significant amount of real estate, including a plantation that was allotted to his widow, Mary L. Connor, as dower. The plaintiffs, who are the heirs of Henry W. Connor, Jr., claimed that Mary L. Connor had committed waste by cutting down timber and allowing the property to fall into disrepair, which diminished its value. The defendant argued that her actions were necessary for the upkeep of the land and that the property was in poor condition when she took possession.

The complaint is as follows: “Plaintiffs above named, complaining of the defendant, allege: (1) That Henry W. Connor, late a resident of said county of Lincoln, died in said county intestate on the 15th day of January, 1866, leaving the defendant, Mary L. Connor, his widow, and seised and possessed of a large amount or real estate…

Issue

Did the defendant negligently and wrongfully waste and damage the lands and property described in the complaint?

Has the defendant negligently and wrongfully wasted and damaged the lands and property described in complaint? Answer. Yes.

Rule

Waste is defined as the spoiling or destroying of the estate with respect to buildings, wood, or soil, to the lasting injury of the inheritance. There are two kinds of waste: voluntary waste, which results from actual commission, and permissive waste, which results from omission and negligence.

Waste is defined to be ‘a spoiling, destroying of the estate with respect to buildings, wood, or soil, to the lasting injury of the inheritance; but no damage resulting from the act of God or from public enemies, or from the reversioners, who own the inheritance, is waste.’

Analysis

The court instructed the jury to determine whether the defendant's actions constituted voluntary or permissive waste. The jury was tasked with evaluating the evidence presented by both parties regarding the condition of the property at the time the defendant took possession and whether her actions caused lasting damage to the inheritance. The jury ultimately found that the defendant had committed waste, as the evidence suggested that her actions had indeed harmed the property.

The court, after explaining the cause of action and relation of parties to the case, and reciting and recapitulating the evidence, charged as follows: ‘…If you find the first issue, ‘No,’ then you need go no further, and need not consider the second issue. If you answer the first issue, ‘Yes,’ then you will proceed to consider the second issue.’

Conclusion

The jury found in favor of the plaintiffs, concluding that the defendant had negligently and wrongfully wasted and damaged the property, and awarded damages totaling $1,300.

Verdict for plaintiff. Rule for new trial. The defendant assigned errors hereinbefore set out.

Who won?

The plaintiffs prevailed in the case, as the jury found that the defendant had committed waste that harmed their reversionary interests in the property.

The jury found in favor of the plaintiffs, concluding that the defendant had negligently and wrongfully wasted and damaged the property, and awarded damages totaling $1,300.

You must be