Attorney-General Ex Rel. Sundry Citizens of Raleigh v. Hunter

16 N.C. 12
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedDecember 5, 1826
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 16 N.C. 12 (Attorney-General Ex Rel. Sundry Citizens of Raleigh v. Hunter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Attorney-General Ex Rel. Sundry Citizens of Raleigh v. Hunter, 16 N.C. 12 (N.C. 1826).

Opinion

The opinion of the Court, was delivered by

Henderson, Judge:

We are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, that the flowing hack of the water as contemplated by the Defendant, according to bis own admissions, will create a public nuisance, and that of the worst kind, being one destructive to the health and comfort of the citizens of Raleigh. And we arc called on to send the question of nuisance or no nuisance, to a Court of Law ; for what to inform our consciences ? they are already informed. And were a Jury to find that it was not a nuisance, irs a case of this kind, we should feel ourselves bound to disregard their verdict; for a Jury would require the most satisfactory evidence of the fact, at least they would require a preponderance of evidence, to convict; with as, under all the circumstances oflhc case, a probability is sufficient. In the first place, the injury is irreparable, the place, the seat of government, where its officers are, compelled to reside. These things make a difference between this case and that of a common nuisance. It is true it is a question of the most delicate kind, an inter-fornico with private rights, from which all department;; of government should abstain, except in cases of necessity. It is however a sound political maxim, and one sanctioned by the Courts of Justice of this country, that individual interest must yield to that of the many ; ami this is something like the interest of the many, for every individual is in some way or other, interested in the welfare of the capital. We refer to the decision of Bell and Blount, (4 Hawks, 384) as an authority to shew the jurisdiction of the Court. Where the right infringed is of a doubtful character, as the right of view over another’s ground, there a Court of Equity will order the right to he established at law, before it will grant an hv *14 junction, in the mean time, staying the owner of the land from closing up the view 5 bnt here the rights infringed upon, are of a character not in the least doubt-health and comfort of the relators, and others for whom they act.

Injunction tentetuated.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Elliott v. Tallassee Power Co.
128 S.E. 730 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1925)
Gaston v. Thompson
174 P. 717 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1918)
Pruitt v. . Bethell
93 S.E. 945 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1917)
Berger v. . Smith
75 S.E. 1098 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1912)
Ex Parte Roper
134 S.W. 334 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1910)
McManus v. Southern Railway Co.
150 N.C. 655 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1909)
McManus v. . R. R.
64 S.E. 766 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1909)
Respass v. Comth. ex rel. Atty. Gen'l
115 S.W. 1131 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1909)
Cherry v. . Williams
61 S.E. 267 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1908)
Vickers v. Durham.
44 S.E. 685 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1903)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 N.C. 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/attorney-general-ex-rel-sundry-citizens-of-raleigh-v-hunter-nc-1826.