This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D owned a piece of property next to the P's land. D was cutting down thorns on his property. These thorns fell into the P's field. While trying to retrieve the thorns, D caused damage to P's crops. P sued D for trespassing onto his land and trampling his crops. D claimed that P did not have an action because D was justified in trespassing so he could clean up his thorns and that D could only commit a tort if he committed a crime. The following argument was stated: When a party erects a building, and when the timber is being lifted a piece falls upon the house of my neighbor and bruises his house, he will have a cause of action even though the erection of the house was lawful and the timber fell without any intent. Similarly, if a man raises a stick to defend himself and injures a man in the act of raising the stick to defend, there would be an action even though the act of defense was lawful and the injury to the third part was without intent.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.