Dougherty v. Stepp
N.C. 371 (1835)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Every unauthorized entry onto the land of another constitutes a trespass, from which the law presumes at least nominal damage, regardless of whether actual physical harm occurs.
Facts:
- Dougherty was the owner of a tract of unenclosed land.
- Stepp claimed that he owned the land.
- Without Dougherty's permission, Stepp entered the land with a surveyor.
- Stepp and the surveyor conducted a survey of the property, which may have included marking trees.
- Stepp's entry and survey caused no apparent physical damage to the land, such as treading down grass or destroying shrubbery.
Procedural Posture:
- Dougherty sued Stepp in a trial court for trespass to land.
- At trial, the judge instructed the jury that if Stepp entered the land but caused no actual damage, they must find in favor of Stepp.
- The jury returned a verdict for the defendant, Stepp.
- The plaintiff, Dougherty, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an unauthorized entry onto another's unenclosed land for the purpose of a survey, without causing any perceptible physical damage, constitute a legally actionable trespass?
Opinions:
Majority - Ruffin, Chief Justice
Yes, an unauthorized entry onto another's land is a trespass even if no actual physical damage occurs. The court reasoned that the fundamental element of trespass is the unauthorized entry itself, which violates the owner's right to exclusive possession. The law infers at least nominal damage from every unlawful entry, even if it is merely the treading down of grass or herbage. The fact that land is unenclosed is irrelevant, as legal title makes the land the owner's 'close'. Entering under an unfounded claim of right does not excuse the act but rather aggravates the wrong.
Analysis:
This case establishes the foundational principle of the tort of trespass to land, clarifying that the cause of action protects the right of exclusive possession, not just the physical condition of the property. The decision solidifies the concept of 'trespass ab initio,' where the unauthorized entry itself is the injury. This precedent ensures that property owners can vindicate their rights against any intrusion, however minor, thereby reinforcing the sanctity of property boundaries without needing to prove tangible financial loss.
