McConico v. Singleton
9 S.C.L. 244 (1818)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person has a right to hunt on unenclosed and uncultivated private land, and exercising this right does not constitute an actionable trespass, even over the objection of the landowner.
Facts:
- A person, presumably Singleton, owned a tract of land.
- The land was unenclosed and uncultivated.
- McConico entered Singleton's land for the purpose of hunting game.
- McConico did not have the landowner's permission to be on the property.
- The landowner disapproved of McConico's entry and hunting on the land.
Procedural Posture:
- The landowner brought an action for trespass against the hunter in a trial court.
- The case was tried, resulting in a verdict.
- A motion was made in the Constitutional Court of South Carolina, an appellate court, to address an issue arising from the trial, which the court considers as an appeal on the underlying legal principle.
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 a person commit an actionable trespass by hunting on another's unenclosed and uncultivated land without the owner's permission?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Johnson
No. A person does not commit an actionable trespass by hunting on another's unenclosed and uncultivated land because there is a long-established public right to do so. The court's reasoning is based on several pillars. First, the right to hunt on such lands is a custom that has been universally exercised since the country's first settlement, and such a long-standing usage can establish law. Second, the legislature has implicitly recognized this right through acts like the 1769 statute, which restricted hunting within seven miles of a hunter's residence, suggesting the right existed more broadly. Third, an action for trespass under common law requires some actual injury to the property, and merely riding over uncultivated soil does not constitute such an injury. Finally, there is a strong public policy interest in preserving the right to hunt, as it provides crucial training in firearms for the militia, which is essential to national security.
Dissenting - Gantt, J.
The opinion notes that Justice Gantt dissented but does not provide the reasoning for the dissent.
Analysis:
This decision formally recognized a public right to hunt on unenclosed private land, establishing a significant departure from the strict English common law doctrine of trespass which protects a landowner's absolute right to exclude others. The court prioritized long-standing local custom and public policy—specifically, the training of the militia—over the technical property rights of a landowner. This ruling created an 'implied license' for the public to use vast, undeveloped private lands for hunting, reflecting an American legal adaptation to the realities of a sparsely populated country and shaping property and recreational use law for decades.
Unlock the full brief for McConico v. Singleton