## Facts

- McConico owned rural land that was unenclosed and unimproved.
- Singleton rode over the land while deer hunting.
- Before the entry at issue, McConico expressly told Singleton not to hunt on the land and forbade him from going there.
- McConico sued Singleton in trespass quare clausum fregit, alleging wrongful entry onto his land.
- The jury’s outcome left each party to bear its own costs, effectively denying McConico relief.
- McConico sought a new trial, arguing that entry after an express prohibition was trespass as a matter of law.
- The case reached the Constitutional Court of Appeals of South Carolina on the legal question whether such entry was actionable trespass in the circumstances presented.

## Issues

1. Whether a landowner may maintain an action for trespass based solely on a hunter’s entry onto unenclosed, unimproved private land after the owner has verbally forbidden entry.
2. Whether longstanding local custom regarding hunting and passage on wild, unfenced lands limits the owner’s right to exclude for purposes of trespass liability.
3. Whether the absence of actual damage or interference with improved/enclosed areas defeats a trespass claim for nominal damages in this context.

## Decision

- The court denied McConico’s motion for a new trial.
- The court treated entry for hunting on unenclosed, unimproved land, consistent with local practice and without causing damage, as not giving rise to actionable trespass on these facts.
- The court distinguished between enclosed or improved land (where unpermitted entry would be trespass) and wild, unfenced land (where customary public use could be tolerated).
- The court concluded that an owner’s verbal prohibition alone did not convert such land into a basis for trespass liability under the prevailing legal and customary regime.

## Legal Principles

- In an open-range setting, customary community use may qualify the landowner’s right to exclude on wild, unenclosed, unimproved lands for purposes of trespass actions.
- Unpermitted entry onto enclosed or improved land is treated differently from entry onto unenclosed, unimproved land used in accordance with established local practice.
- Where a defendant’s entry causes no actual injury and does not interfere with cultivated or enclosed areas, a court may decline to recognize a trespass action premised solely on nominal harm in this context.
- A landowner’s express verbal objection, standing alone, may be insufficient to impose trespass liability for ordinary hunting passage on unenclosed, unimproved land when custom and background law recognize such use.

## Conclusion

The court refused to impose trespass liability for riding and hunting on unenclosed, unimproved land without damage, holding that the owner’s verbal prohibition did not, by itself, create an actionable trespass claim under the governing local custom and legal expectations.


McConico v. Singleton, 9 S.C.L. (2 Mill) 244 (S.C. Const. Ct. App. 1818)