Ridley v. Railroad
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This is the plaintiff’s appeal from the judgment rendered in this canse. The answer contained the allegation, “For further answer, these defendants say, that the bridge, embankments and abutments,-mentioned in the complaint, are permanent in their character; that whatever damage (if any) said bridge, embankments and abutments, caused to the lands of the plaintiff, was permanent in its characterand the jury so found.
Read the full summary
This is the plaintiff’s appeal from the judgment rendered in this canse. The answer contained the allegation, “For further answer, these defendants say, that the bridge, embankments and abutments,-mentioned in the complaint, are permanent in their character; that whatever damage (if any) said bridge, embankments and abutments, caused to the lands of the plaintiff, was permanent in its characterand the jury so found. The plaintiff, after being examined as a witness in his own behalf, stated upon his cross-examination that the portion of his land in this State embraced 425 acres, which he…
1Opinion of the CourtClark, J.
The plaintiff excepted to the submission of an issue as to the permanent damages, they not having been claimed by the complaint. But it was held in the same case when here on a former appeal (118 N. C., 996, at p. 1008,), that either the plaintiff or defendant could have the permanent damages assessed, if demanded in either the complaint or answer. To same purpose is Parker v. Railroad, 119 N. C., 677.
The jury found the permanent damages to be $500 and the damages to the crops in the past three years to have been $300. The court rendered judgment for only $500. In this there was error. (See…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Ridley v. Seaboard & Roanoke RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1896
- Parker v. Norfolk & Carolina RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1896
- Austin v. . KingSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1887
- Kenerson v. HenryMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
- Daniels v. . FowlerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1898
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Kansas City & Grandview Railway Co. v. HaakeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1932
- Railroad v. Land Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1904
- United States v. Certain Parcels of Land in the County of Arlington, State of Virginia, and Howard W. SilsbyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1958
- Wyatt v. Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
- Gates v. . MaxSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1899
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.