majority"> SMITH, C. J.

The ruling and the instruction given were in our opinion entirely correct and fully justified by the decision of the court in Brothers v. Hurdle, 10 Ired., 490, the facts of which w ere very similar. In that case the defendant had in an action of ejectment recovered the land upon which the crop had been raised and partly gathered, and was put in possession by the sheriff. He then appropriated to his own use the gathered and ungathered crop, for the former of which the suit was brought. It was held that he was entitled to recover. In the elaborate opinion of the late Chief Justice, he thus states the law applicable to such cases: “ Where one who is in the adverse possession gathers a crop in the course of husbandry, or severs a tree or other thing from the land, the thing severed becomes a chattel, but it does not become the property of the owner of the land; for his title is divested; he is out of possession, and has no right to the immediate possession of the thing; nor can he bring *456 any action until he require possession.” Nor can the owner after being put in possession sue and recover the article or thing severed, because as the Chief Justice adds, “ it is not his chattel; it did not become so at the time; it was severed and the title to it as a chattel cannot pass to him afterwards when he regains possession, by force of the jus post liminii See also the case of Walton v. Jordan, 65 N. C., 171. It is needless to pursue the subject further. There is no error and the judgment is affirmed.

No error. Affirmed.

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress