Watts v. . Bell
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Special pboceediNG to recover damages for tbe injury to plaintiff’s land by tbe erection of defendants’ mill dam, tried before Mitchell, J., at the Spring Term, 1874, of Caldwell Superior Court. The defendants objected to plaintiff’s right to a verdict in this action upon the grounds set forth in the answer, that there was no sufficient averment in the complaint that there was any mill, mentioned in the statute, situate at plaintiff’s dam to entitle him to his remedy.
Read the full summary
Special pboceediNG to recover damages for tbe injury to plaintiff’s land by tbe erection of defendants’ mill dam, tried before Mitchell, J., at the Spring Term, 1874, of Caldwell Superior Court. The defendants objected to plaintiff’s right to a verdict in this action upon the grounds set forth in the answer, that there was no sufficient averment in the complaint that there was any mill, mentioned in the statute, situate at plaintiff’s dam to entitle him to his remedy. This objection was overruled by the Court and the following issues were submitted to the j ury upon the evidence, to wit: 1.…
1Opinion of the CourtEeade, J.
I. The first question is, whether his Honor had the power to set aside the verdict because, in his opinion, it was “ contrary to the evidence ?” by which we understand the weight of the evidence. It is too clear for argument that he has, and the practice has been uniform time out of mind. And upon the supposition that we can review the order under C. C. P. 299, in a proper case, there is nothing in this case to show that there was error.
II. There were three issues submitted to the jury : 1. Is plaintiff’s land injured by the mill dam of defendant % 2. Has defendant acquired by lapse of time…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Goodman v. . GoodmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
- Roberts v. HillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
- Brink v. . BlackSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1876
- Edwards v. . PhiferSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1897