Durham v. Cotton Mills.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
8. Eevisal, section 3051 (Acts 1903, chapter 159, section 13), prohibiting the discharge of sewage into any stream from which a public drinking supply is taken without reference to the distance of such discharge from the point of intake, is not unconstitutional as a taking of property without condemnation and without compensation, but is a valid exercise of the police power of the State to secure the public health.
Read the full summary
8. Eevisal, section 3051 (Acts 1903, chapter 159, section 13), prohibiting the discharge of sewage into any stream from which a public drinking supply is taken without reference to the distance of such discharge from the point of intake, is not unconstitutional as a taking of property without condemnation and without compensation, but is a valid exercise of the police power of the State to secure the public health. ActioN by the City of Durham and T. A. Mann against Eno Cotton Mills, pending in the Superior Court of Durham;, and heard by Judge Q. 8. Ferguson, at Chambers in Durham, on…
1Opinion of the Court
Walker, J.,
after stating the case: This is an application for an injunction to restrain the defendant from polluting the Eno River, which, it appears, is in part the source of supply to the city of Durham of water for drinking and other purposes requiring it to be ke}5t free from impurities. The plaintiffs, although they have stated but one cause of action, base their right to relief upon two grounds: 1. That as the water supply of Durham is obtained partly from the Eno River at a place on that stream where the water company’s plant is located, it has the rights in the water of the river of a…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Mugler v. KansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Thurlow v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1847
- Beer Co. v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Thorpe v. Rutland & Burlington RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1854
- Fertilizing Co. v. Hyde ParkSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by51 opinions
- Stanley v. Department of Conservation & DevelopmentSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1973
- Wright v. BestCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Kirby v. North Carolina Department of TransportationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2016
- Coastal Plains Utilities, Inc. v. New Hanover CountyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2004
- City of Huntington v. State Water CommissionWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1953
46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.