Legal Opinion

Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. Moss

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 29, 1941Published

1Opinion of the CourtBaeNhill, J.

The petitioner has not taken and does not seek to take any part of the property of any one of the respondents except a right of way or easement, for the tunnel which passes across the land of the respondent Ida Moss. It only seeks the right to divert the waters of Tuckaseegee Eiver which passes along the boundary line of the respective respondents and to have the compensation to be paid therefor fixed and determined. And it is conceded that as the property line of each respondent extends to the thread.of the stream each is a riparian owner *204affected by the diversion of the waters of such…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
  2. Olson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
  3. Boom Co. v. PattersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
  4. United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1913
  5. Boston Chamber of Commerce v. City of BostonSupreme Court of the United States · 1910

23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API