Case Name: HENRY BARTLETT v. EDMUND SIMMONS
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1857-06
Citations: 4 Jones 295
Docket Number: 
Parties: HENRY BARTLETT v. EDMUND SIMMONS.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 49
Pages: 295–296

Head Matter:
HENRY BARTLETT v. EDMUND SIMMONS.
The acts of going- yearly, for a few weeks at a time, to get rails and other timber off of land, though only valuable for timber, do not amount to such an exercise of ownership as will ripen a defective title, or give an action of trespass quart, clausum fregit
This was an action of tresspass qua/re clausiomfregit^'tried before Ellis, J., at the Spring Term, 1857, of Camden Superior Court.
The plaintiff traced his title from one James Bray, who was in the habit, more than forty.years ago, of going yearly, for a few weeks at a time, upon the land, and getting rails and other timber; that in some years he would go more than once ; that he also would go upon the land as often as they were cut, and take off timber and rails. This was continued until the year 1828, when he sold by metes and bounds to Ziba Eorbes, who continued the same practice of going yearly and getting timber as above stated, until 1834, when he sold to one William Bartlett, by metes and bounds, who continued the same acts as above stated, until his death, in 1852. The plaintiff is his son and heir-at-law.
The land in question is swamp, and not susceptible of cultivation. It is only valuable for the purposes of getting timber. It is disconnected with any other lands owned by the above named persons.
There was no other evidence of title in the plaintiff.
The Court was of opinion that, upon this state of facts, the plaintiff was not entitled to re cover.
The plaintiff submitted to a nonsuit and appealed.
Jorda/rh) for plaintiff.
No counsel appeared in this Court for the defendant.

Opinion:
Pearson, J.
The acts of the plaintiff, and those under Whom he claims, in getting rails off of the land from year to year, were separate and unconnected trespasses, and do not amount to the exercise of such ownership as will ripen a title, or give the right to maintain an action of trespass, q. c. f. The doctrine on this subject is discussed, and all the cases collated in Loftin v. Cobb, 1 Jones' Rep. 406. There is no error.
Pee Cuexam. Judgment affirmed.