D entered onto P's unenclosed land and surveyed some of it to take as his own.
D did not cause any substantial damage to the land.
P sued D for trespass.
Procedural History:
Trial court dismissed P's case since there was no injury to the land.
NC Supreme Court reversed, P's cause of action for trespass valid.
Issues:
Is actual physical injury to land necessary in order to maintain an action in intentional trespass?
Holding/Rule:
Actual physical injury to land is not necessary in order to maintain an action in intentional trespass.
Reasoning:
Actual injury may influence the amount of damages, but it is not necessary to state a cause of action.
The intent required is the intent to enter the land (not to enter the land of someone else). A trespasser can honestly believe they are on their own land and be liable.
In cases where there is no actual damages, nominal damages may be awarded.
