Mizzell v. . McGowan
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Civil actioN, tried before Graham, J., and a jury, at December Term, 1896, of Pitt Superior Court. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. From a judgment for the plaintiff the defendants appealed.
1Opinion of the Court
Fairoloth, 0., J.:
The plaintiff instituted this action for damages to his land by reason of ditches or canals cut by the defendants, collecting large quantities of water and discharging the same upon plaintiff’s land in unusual quantities and with greater rapidity and force than before.
By the statement of the ease we are informed that Broad creek, about 30 or 40 feet wide at its mouth, empties into Tar river, Moyes run into Broad creek, and that Baldwin, Canon and Cooper swamps naturally enter into Moyes run; that plaintiff’s farm, alleged to be damaged, is bounded on the east and north by…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Peck v. HerringtonIllinois Supreme Court · 1884
- Hughes v. AndersonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1880
- Porter v. DurhamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1876
- Waffle v. . New York Central R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Jenkins v. Wilmington & Weldon RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1892
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Pendergrast v. AikenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1977
- Clark v. Patapsco Guano Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1907
- Mizell v. McGowan.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1901
- Roberts v. . BaldwinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1909
- Barcliff v. Norfolk Southern RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.