Legal Opinion

Winchester v. . Byers

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 12, 1928PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Pee CuRiam.

This is an action for diverting the natural flow of surface water by defendant placing dirt in such quantities on his land that the water flooded plaintiff’s land, damaging his house and [and. We think the evidence sufficient to be submitted to the jury.

The principle of law is well settled in Porter v. Durham, 74 N. C., at p. 779: “It has been held that an owner of lower land, is obliged to receive upon it the surface water which falls on adjoining higher land, and which naturally flows on the lower land. Of course when the water reaches his land the lower owner can collect it in a…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Barcliff v. Norfolk Southern RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
  2. Mitchell v. Town of AhoskieSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  3. Morrow v. Florence MillsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
  4. Langley v. Staley Hosiery Mills Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1927

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Pendergrast v. AikenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1977
  2. Phillips v. ChessonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
  3. Johnson v. City of Winston-SalemSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  4. Scanlan v. HopkinsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1970
  5. Lumber Co. v. . Power Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1934

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

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

Powered by the Exa API