The phrase "action of trespass" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in legal contexts to refer to the act of unlawfully entering or interfering with someone else's property.
Example: "The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the action of trespass on their land."
Alternatives: "trespass claim" or "trespass action."
All these courts competed for business with the existing common-law courts, which led the latter to develop new remedies that proved more effective and expeditious than those previously available, particularly with regard to the action of trespass.
In the fourteenth century a plaintiff bringing an action of trespass on the case against a defendant for doing badly what he had undertaken to do, i.e., for misfeasance, would face the argument that he was using the wrong writ.
Ct. 240, for the action of ejectment in that case is, in its essential character, an action of trespass, with the power in the court to restore the possession to the plaintiff as part of the judgment.
The case presented is this: There was a trial of an action of trespass between the parties, wherein the appellee was defendant, in the circuit court of Jasper county.
Rev. 68 (1936); Dix, The Origins of the Action of Trespass on the Case, 46 Yale L.J. 1142 19377); A. K. Kiralfy, The Action on the Case (1951); Baker at 58-59.
This statement of the decision in U. S. v. Lee was repeated in Stanley v. Schwalby, in which the point decided was that the statute of limitations, or adverse possession, might be pleaded in defense of an action of trespass to try title against officers of the United States.
The actions of trespass and disseisin (dispossession; see adverse possession) had Roman analogies, as did the liabilities of those following the so-called "common callings" of innkeeper, carrier of goods, and stable keeper.
In 1704, the colony provided that non-Indians who took timber from Indian lands would be "lyable to Action or Actions of trespass And the persons grieved shall and may recover their Damages accordingly".
In upholding the common law claims, the court found that defendants had not shown that plaintiff's allegation that it had suffered "irreparable damages" was insufficient to support a cause of action for trespass.
For even though it be decided that petitioners have no right to damages under the Constitution, the district court will be required to pass upon the question whether the facts stated by petitioners give rise to a cause of action for trespass under state law.
