Moorehead v. Hudson, et al.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2003-CA-00558-COA
Linked Case(s): 2003-CA-00558-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 08-03-2004
Opinion Author: Lee, J.
Holding: Reversed and Remanded

Additional Case Information: Topic: Property damage - Timber trespass - Joint liability - Section 95-5-10 - Damages
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges, P.J., Irving, Myers and Chandler, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Southwick, P.J. and Griffis, J.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 01-31-2003
Appealed from: UNION COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
Judge: James L. Roberts
Disposition: HELD ONLY THE SELLERS OF THE TIMBER LIABLE FOR THE TIMBER TRESPASS AND NOT THE LOGGING COMPANY
Case Number: 96-0322

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Robert W. Moorehead




WILLIAM M. BEASLEY REBECCA L. HAWKINS



 

Appellee: Anthony Ray Hudson, Sr., Susan Annette Hudson and R.L.H. Logging, Inc. WILLIAM O. RUTLEDGE, III GEORGE MARTIN VIA  

Synopsis provided by:

If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office.

Topic: Property damage - Timber trespass - Joint liability - Section 95-5-10 - Damages

Summary of the Facts: Robert Moorehead discovered that timber had been harvested from a portion of his property without his consent. He filed suit in chancery court to quite title to the property and to recover damages for the timber trespass, naming Anthony Hudson, Sr., Susan Hudson and R.L.H. Logging, Inc. as defendants. The chancellor awarded Moorehead a judgment against the Hudsons totaling $40,318.08. R.L.H. Logging was awarded a judgment against the Hudsons for attorneys fees in the amount of $7,016.75. Moorehead appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Joint liability Moorehead argues that the court erred in finding that R.L.H. Logging's conduct was solely attributable to the actions of the Hudsons. To recover under section 95-5-10, the owner of the timber must only prove ownership of the timber and that the timber was cut down, deadened or destroyed or removed by the defendant or the defendant's agent without the owner's consent. The statute specifically excludes "good faith" as a defense to timber trespass. By participating in the tree harvest, R.L.H. Logging falls within the purview of the statute and accordingly should share liability for the timber trespass. Issue 2: Damages Moorehead argues that he is entitled to the additional damages outlined in section 95-5-10(2) which provides for additional damages when the removing or deadening of trees is done willfully or in reckless disregard for the rights of the owner of the tree. Because good faith is not a defense to timber trespass, the chancellor should have made a separate determination as to R.L.H. Logging's liability under section 95-5-10(2). Therefore, chancellor's decision awarding damages against the Hudsons only is reversed.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court