Smith v. Stone [1647] Style 65
Involuntary Trespass
Facts
Smith (S) brought an action of trespass against Stone (D) after D was carried onto S’s land by force, and violence of others, and was not there voluntarily. D was carried onto the land of P by force and violence of others; there was trespass by the people who carried D onto the land, and not by D.
Issue
D claimed that he had a special plea of justification for the trespass, because he was carried onto S’s land by force, and violence of others, making the trespass of S’s land involuntary
Held
An involuntary trespass is not actionable. Only the trespass of the party which D onto the land was actionable. The court compared the present circumstance to a hypothetical situation involving a person driving cattle onto someone else’s land:
“as he that drives my cattel into another mans land is the trespassor against him, and not I who am owner of the cattell.”
Updated 20 March 2026
This article remains legally accurate. Smith v Stone (1647) Style 65 is a foundational common law authority establishing that involuntary trespass to land is not actionable against the person who was physically carried onto another’s land without their consent. The principle has not been affected by subsequent legislation or case law and continues to be cited in discussions of the voluntariness requirement in trespass to land. The article accurately states the facts, issue, and ratio. There are no material legal developments that affect its analysis.
