Creel v. Crim

Lovelady (defendant) hired Creel (defendant) to harvest timber on her property, but Creel ended up cutting trees on neighboring landowner Crim's (plaintiff) property, apparently based on Lovelady's representations about the property boundary; Creel wrote Crim an apology note acknowledging overcutting. The trial court held Creel, but not Lovelady, directly liable to Crim for trespass, and ordered Lovelady to only partially indemnify Creel ($2,700 of the $5,400 judgment); Creel appealed.