Possession alone is sufficient to maintain this action against a wrong-doer, and as such the defendants are charged. The gift of of the action is a nusance committed by them upon land in the plaintiff’s possession ; and as all averments beyond this are immaterial and not put in issue in this action, they need not be proved. The case cited is of a variance in the description of a contract ; and the cases therein referred to as warranting the decision of the court, cannot fairly be extended beyond those cases where records, or written contracts are set forth in the declaration : these, if stated at all, ought to be stated truly. The possession here is the ground of the action, and had that been described in any particular way, as derived under lease for years or otherwise, the proof ought to have corresponded with the allegation, but as the Seisin of the plaintiff is altogether impertinent, it need not be proved. The plaintiff had a verdict.
Yeargain v. Johnston, 1 N.C. 80, 1 Tay. 80 (1800)
Yeargain versus Johnston and Hopkins.
In an action for overflowing the plaintiff's land, he need not prove his title, although it be set forth in the declaration.
THIS was an action on the case for overflowing the plaintiff’s land, by means of a mill-damerected by the defendant. The declaration slated, that the plaintiff was seised, in his demesne as of fee: and possessed of the lands in question.
Duffy for the defendant contended,
that although the plaintiff was not bound to state his title in the declaration, yet, having thought fit to do so, *81he was compellable to prove it ; for which he cited and relied upon the case of Bristow versus Wight and Pugh, Douglas, 640. but,
[Vide Gevinnet versus Phillips and others, 3 Term Rep. 644, Drewry versus Tuiss and another, 4 Term Rep 558.]