Goodson v. . Mullen and Derr
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This was an action for damages caused by the ponding of water on plaintiffs’ land — removed from the county of Lincoln, and tried before MaoRae, Judge, and a jury, at Spring Term, 1884, of Gaston Superior Court. . The plaintiff complained that the testator, J. W. Derr, being the owner of a dam across a creek flowing through the lands of plaintiff, had at various times raised and tightened the same and thereby damaged said land $250 annually.
Read the full summary
This was an action for damages caused by the ponding of water on plaintiffs’ land — removed from the county of Lincoln, and tried before MaoRae, Judge, and a jury, at Spring Term, 1884, of Gaston Superior Court. . The plaintiff complained that the testator, J. W. Derr, being the owner of a dam across a creek flowing through the lands of plaintiff, had at various times raised and tightened the same and thereby damaged said land $250 annually. Plaintiff offered evidence tending to prove that the dam had been raised by defendant twenty inches or more higher in 1860 than it was in 1833, and again…
1Opinion of the CourtAshe, J.
This action is brought under the Act of 1868, as amended by the Act of 1877. ' The former act of 1868 as brought forward in Battle’s Bevisal, ch. 72, secs. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18, made no substantial change in the statute in reference to mills as contained in the Revised Code, except as to the mode of proceeding. But the act of 1876-77 repealed all the sections of Battle’s Revisal, ch. 72, in reference to mills, except the 17th and 18th, and, as was said in Hester v. Broach, 84 N. C., 251, the act of 1876-77, ch. 197, and the 17th and 18th sections of ch. 72 of Battle’s Revisal constituted…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Burnett v. . NicholsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1882
- Hester v. . BroachSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1881
3Cited by1 opinion
- Kinsland v. . KinslandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926