Nunnamaker v. Columbia Water Power Co.
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Action by Arthur S. Nunnamaker against the Columbia Water Power Company for damages to a tract of land caused by overflow of back water. Defendant demurred. Circuit Court sustained the demurrer. Plaintiff appeals. cite: Randolph on Em. Dom., § 129; Lewis on Em. Dom., § 566, 571; 53 Ga., 178; 43 la., 26; Lewis on Em. Dom., chap. IV. cite: 28 S. C., 388; 34 S. C., 66; Randolph on Em. Dom., § 126, 136; 33 S. C., 181; 2 Wall., 177; Rand, on Em. Dorn., § 129, 254; 39 W. Va., 196.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Jones.
This case being in all respects, except in one particular to be hereinafter noticed, like the case of George F. Leitzsey against the Columbia Water Power Compony, just decided by this Court, is ruled by the principles therein announced.
The point of difference in this case and the one just referred to is this: In the third paragraph of the complaint it is alleged that “On or about the 13th day of March, 1891, the said board of trustees of the Columbia Canal purchased from the plaintiff herein the right to overflow and cover with water,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Watts v. Norfolk & W. R.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1894
- Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. SmithIllinois Supreme Court · 1884
3Cited by14 opinions
- Wilson v. Greenville CountySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1918
- Jones v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1903
- Sternes v. Sutter Butte Canal Co.California Court of Appeal · 1923
- Matheson v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1926
- J. Abe Hilton v. Duke Power Company, a Corporation Organized and Existing Under the Laws of One of the States of the UnionCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1958
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.