Elks v. Commissioners of Pitt County
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal by plaintiff from Kerr, J., at September Term, 1919, of Pitt. This was a proceeding by plaintiff under sec. 8, ch. 714, Laws 1905, asking that a jury be appointed to assess damages caused to his land by the county taking 7/10 of an acre of land in the construction of a public road. The jury was duly appointed, and made its report allowing defendant $175 damages. Without waiting for the commissioners to take action, the plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal by plaintiff from Kerr, J., at September Term, 1919, of Pitt. This was a proceeding by plaintiff under sec. 8, ch. 714, Laws 1905, asking that a jury be appointed to assess damages caused to his land by the county taking 7/10 of an acre of land in the construction of a public road. The jury was duly appointed, and made its report allowing defendant $175 damages. Without waiting for the commissioners to take action, the plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court. At the trial in that court the jury awarded the plaintiff $225 damages, and he appealed to this Court.
1Opinion of the CourtClark, C. J.
The witness Tyson had testified as to the damages to the plaintiff’s land, and on cross-examination he was asked if he had claimed any damages for the road going through the witness’s land, to which he answered: “I would have done so if I had thought it would have been of any use.” The witness owned adjoining land, and the question was competent as tending to shake his testimony as to the damage the plaintiff had sustained. We cannot see that the plaintiff sustained any harm from the answer, which at most was merely irrelevant.
Another witness was asked on cross-examination: “What value is the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Raleigh & Augusta Air Line R. R. v. WickerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1876
- Miller v. City of AshevilleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1893
- Bost v. Cabarrus CountySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1910
- Southport, Wilmington & Durham Railroad v. Owners of Platt LandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1903
- Peoria, Bloomington & Champaign Traction Co. v. VanceIllinois Supreme Court · 1907
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Town of Ayden v. LancasterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
- Texaco (Puerto Rico) Inc. v. Secretario de Obras PúblicasSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1962
- State v. SandersWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1945
- Haislip v. . R. RSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1889
- Ward v. Town of WaynesvilleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.