Howcott's Ex'rs v. Warren
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Chowan County, at the Fall Term, 1846, his Honor Judge Pearson, presiding. The proceedings in this case, are under the act of the General Assembly. Rev. St. ch. 74, sec. 9, and following. The petition is filed to recover from the defendant damages sustained by the plaintiff’s testator, for overflowing his land, by the mill pond of the defendant.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Chowan County, at the Fall Term, 1846, his Honor Judge Pearson, presiding. The proceedings in this case, are under the act of the General Assembly. Rev. St. ch. 74, sec. 9, and following. The petition is filed to recover from the defendant damages sustained by the plaintiff’s testator, for overflowing his land, by the mill pond of the defendant. The petition was heard, and order granted for a jury, in accordance with the provisions of the act. A verdict was returned, assessing the plaintiff’s damages to $25. From the judgment on' this verdict in the…
1Opinion of the Court
Nash,'J. .
In this decision, we are of opinion his Honor erred. 'By the common law, when a tort to real property was not immediately inj urious, but was consequentially only, an action on the case was the proper remedy; and when the act, complained óf constituted a nuisance, the action might be brought for every fresh continuance of the nuisance. Penruddock’s case, 5 Rep. 101. As the action was usually brought to abate the nuisance, the damages in the first recovery were often, merely nominal. If other suits became necessary through the obstinacy of the defendant, fresh actions were brought,…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Mast v. Sapp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
- McIntyre v. JoseySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
- Mast v. Sapp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906