Burnett v. . Nicholson .
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Petition for an injunction, heard before Henry,./., at Pall Term, 1874, Halifax Superior Court. The facts as found by the Court were as follows : The plaintiffs are owners of a grist mill.
Read the full summary
Petition for an injunction, heard before Henry,./., at Pall Term, 1874, Halifax Superior Court. The facts as found by the Court were as follows : The plaintiffs are owners of a grist mill. The defendants owning land below them, were erecting a dam on the same water course within six hundred or a thousand yards below, and so close to plaintiffs’ mill as to back the water on the wheel of said mill to such an extent as to prevent the turning of the same and to submerge it to the depth of about three feet, thereby seriously damaging and rendering entirely useless or of no value said mill. Upon…
1Opinion of the CourtPeaeson, C. J.
The answer and the affidavits filed by the defendants so fully meet the supposed equity of the plaintiffs, that his Honor was obliged to refuse to continue the injunction. In Johnson v. Roan, 523, it is held, that although the ponding back of water by a mill dam does not actually overflow any land out-ide of the banks of the stream, but so obstructs the flow of the water as to prevent land from being drained, the owner of the land is entitled to damages under the act of, 1809. In Pugh v. Wheeler, 2 Dev. & Bat., 50, it is held that ponding water back in a stream so as to obstruct the motions…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Rope Co. v. . Aluminum Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
- Tucker & Carter Rope Co. v. Southern Aluminum Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
- Kinsland v. . KinslandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926