Legal Opinion

Young v. Southern Mica Co. of North Carolina, Inc.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided May 6, 1953PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtJohnson, J.

First, tbe defendant insists that its motion for judgment as of nonsuit should have been allowed.

*648Here the defendant relies on the clause in the lease which provides that it shall not be liable to the plaintiffs “for any waste material dropped on their lands while in transit through the flume lines . . ; whereas the plaintiffs point to the provision in the lease which stipulates that the mining operations do not authorize the defendant “to dump waste” upon any of the lands of the plaintiffs.

This language is clear. “Drop” means “to fall like a drop”; whereas “dump” means “to deposit something…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Kohl v. LehlbackSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
  2. Raub v. CarpenterSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
  3. Wassum v. FeeneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
  4. State v. . LambertSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1885
  5. State v. . LevySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Young v. SOUTHERN MICA CO. OF NORTH CAROLINASupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API