Black v. Town of Bessemer City

148 S.E. 29, 197 N.C. 195, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 187
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedMay 8, 1929
StatusPublished

This text of 148 S.E. 29 (Black v. Town of Bessemer City) 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
Black v. Town of Bessemer City, 148 S.E. 29, 197 N.C. 195, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 187 (N.C. 1929).

Opinion

*196 Pee Oueiam.

Tbe plaintiff insisted that bis property bad been damaged not only by the increase of the volume of water resulting from the diversion of water from Long Creek by the city, but also by reason of noxious odors and gases wbicb invaded the atmosphere so that pollution of botb water and air resulted in serious injury to bis proprietary rights. Consequently, the plaintiff insisted that the pollution of the stream and of the air amounted in law to a taking of bis property, and, therefore, the trial judge should have instructed the jury to award nominal damages at least. This position would be sound except for the provision of C. S., 2805, wbicb expressly confers upon municipalities the right to “construct, establish, maintain and operate” sewerage systems, and in order to make such power effective the right of eminent domain is conferred. Hines v. Rocky Mount, 162 N. C., 409, 78 S. E., 410; Rhodes v. Durham, 165 N. C., 679, 81 S. E., 938; Smith v. Morganton, 187 N. C., 801, 123 S. E., 88.

Tbe plaintiff further insists that the issue submitted by the trial judge and answered by the jury excluded the element of damages claimed by him, arising from the pollution of the air, by confining bis recovery exclusively, to the aspect of diversion of water. It appears, however, from the record that this element of injury was submitted to the jury in these words: “It is proper for you, however, to consider evidence of offensive odors, evidence of the presence of mosquitoes and flies, evidence of pollution of the air made there by offensive odors.”

A close scrutiny of the record does not disclose error of law, and the judgment rendered is

Affirmed.

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

Related

Rhodes v. . Durham
81 S.E. 938 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1914)
Smith v. Town of Morganton
123 S.E. 88 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
148 S.E. 29, 197 N.C. 195, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/black-v-town-of-bessemer-city-nc-1929.