Black v. Aberdeen & West End Railroad
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Civil actiost, tried before Brown, J, at August Term, 1894, Moore Superior Court, being an appeal from Justice of the Peace. The plaintiff brought action to recover the value of certain turpentine alleged to have been destroyed by fire communicated by defendant’s engine, April 1,1893. The defendant denied the allegations that it had been guilty of any negligence. The plaintiff admitted that the engine of defendant was in good condition and had a proper spark arrester.
Read the full summary
Civil actiost, tried before Brown, J, at August Term, 1894, Moore Superior Court, being an appeal from Justice of the Peace. The plaintiff brought action to recover the value of certain turpentine alleged to have been destroyed by fire communicated by defendant’s engine, April 1,1893. The defendant denied the allegations that it had been guilty of any negligence. The plaintiff admitted that the engine of defendant was in good condition and had a proper spark arrester. The only claim of negligence alleged by plaintiff was that the defendant’s roadbed and right-of way are foul with rubbish and…
1ConcurrenceA very, J.
Concurring fully with the majority of the Court in the judgment announced, I deem it best to state a little more explicitly the grounds upon which I *673rest my opinion. ■ The right-of-way of railroads is, by judgment of condemnation, made subject to occupation whenever the corporation finds it necessary to use it .in furtherance of the ends for which the company was created. In assessing the damages it must be assumed that the estimate is not based upon the idea of the exclusive occupation and perception of the profits of the whole of the condemned land by the corporation, but upon the more…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hinkle v. Richmond & Danville RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1891
- Ward v. Wilmington & Weldon RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1893