Wright v. . Stowe
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This was a petitioN for damages for ponding back water upon plaintiff’s land, tried before Bailey, J., at the Special Term, July, 1857, of Lincoln Superior Court. Upon the trial of this cause, there was much testimony on both sides, which need not be stated.
Read the full summary
This was a petitioN for damages for ponding back water upon plaintiff’s land, tried before Bailey, J., at the Special Term, July, 1857, of Lincoln Superior Court. Upon the trial of this cause, there was much testimony on both sides, which need not be stated. His Honor instructed the jury, among other things, that “ if the water was thrown up the branches, which ran through the low ground, or against the banks of tbe river, and was taken up by absorption, and did no injury, whatever, to the plaintiff’s land, he would not be entitled to nominal damages.” To which the plaintiff excepted. A…
1Opinion of the CourtBattle, J.
The last proposition in his Honor’s charge upon the subject of damages, cannot be supported upon a proper construction of the 15th sec. of 74th ch. of the Rev. Statutes. (See Rev. Code, ch. 71, sec. 14.) • If the water be, in fact, ponded back upon the plaintiff’s land, he will be entitled to recover, at least, nominal damages; the statute being intended to change the form and details only of the remedy, and not the principle of the action. See Gillet v. Jones, 1 Dev. and Bat. Rep. 339. Eor this error, however, his Honor is not responsible, as his charge is fully sustained by what was said,…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Smith v. . MooreSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
- Cooper v. Southern RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
- W. M. Ritter Lumber Co. v. Montvale Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
- Grant v. . MitchellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
- Lumber Co. v. . Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.