North Carolina State Board of Health v. Commissioners of Louisburg
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Civil actioN, beard on demurrer to answer and by consent before Bond, J., in Fbanklin County, 28 September, 1916. The .action was instituted to restrain the defendants from discharging raw sewage into Tar-River a short distance below the town without having the same properly treated' as required by statute, Public Laws 1911, eh. 62, sec. 33, etc.
Read the full summary
Civil actioN, beard on demurrer to answer and by consent before Bond, J., in Fbanklin County, 28 September, 1916. The .action was instituted to restrain the defendants from discharging raw sewage into Tar-River a short distance below the town without having the same properly treated' as required by statute, Public Laws 1911, eh. 62, sec. 33, etc. In the complaint it is, among other things, alleged that defendant, a town of several thousand people situate on Tar River, maintains water-works and a sewerage system, the latter consisting of five principal sewer lines and their ramifications…
1Opinion of the Court
Hoke, J.,
after stating tbe case: In section 33, Laws 1911, cb. 62, a statute to collect and amend tbe laws more directly appertaining to tbe public bealtb, it is enacted that “No person, firm, corporation, or municipality shall flow or discharge sewage above tbe intake into any drain, brook, creek, or river from which a public drinking-water supply is taken unless tbe same shall have been passed, through some well-known system of sewage juriflcation approved by the State Board of Health; and the continued flow and discharge of such sewage may be enjoined on the application of any person.”…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Hadacheck v. SebastianSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Chicago & Alton Railroad v. TranbargerSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Reinman v. City of Little RockSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1909
- Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. City of OmahaSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Harrell v. PowellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
- State v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1915