Russell v. Hill - 125 N.C. 470, 34 S.E. 640 (1899)

Rule:

Where plaintiff, although in possession, is not in fact the owner, the presumption of title inferred from the possession is rebutted, and it would be manifestly wrong to allow the plaintiff to recover the value of the property; for the real owner may forthwith bring trover against the defendant and force him to pay the value the second time. And the fact that he paid it in a former suit would be no defense; consequently, trover can never be maintained unless a satisfaction of the judgment will have the effect of vesting a good title in the defendant, except where the property is restored and the conversion was temporary.

Facts:

The state vested title in real property via a land grant and the trustee registered his title. Plaintiff bought timber that was on this land from seller who had land grant on portion of same land as trustee's. Defendants sold plaintiff's timber without plaintiff's consent. Plaintiff brought an action for trover against defendants and the trial court held in favor of defendants. According to the trial court, plaintiff could not maintain action in trover where plaintiff's seller did not have legal title in timber sold to plaintiff. Plaintiff sought review of the decision. 

Issue:

Could the plaintiff maintain an action in trover, notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff’s seller did not have legal title in timber sold to plaintiff? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The reviewing court affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of defendants, holding that where the plaintiff’s seller did not have title, title could not pass to plaintiff. Therefore, where plaintiff had no title or possession or a present right of possession, recovery was denied. According to the court, plaintiff could recover against the defendants because the true owner could subsequently bring suit for same damages.