Carolina Power & Light Co. v. Briggs

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Carolina Power & Light Co. v. Briggs

150 S.E.2d 16, 268 N.C. 158, 1966 N.C. LEXIS 1149

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedSeptember 21, 1966

Docket128

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 150 S.E.2d 16 (Carolina Power & Light Co. v. Briggs) 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

Carolina Power & Light Co. v. Briggs, 150 S.E.2d 16, 268 N.C. 158, 1966 N.C. LEXIS 1149 (N.C. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

RESPONDENTS’ APPEAL.

Each of respondents’ assignments of error has received careful consideration. Conceding there may be technical error in certain of the court’s rulings with reference to the admissibility of evidence, a careful reading of the evidence fails to show respondents were prejudiced thereby. Upon the entire record, we find no error of such nature as to justify a new trial.

PETITIONER’S APPEAL.

On June 8, 1962, petitioner paid into the office of the clerk of the superior court the sum of $6,975.00, the amount of damages assessed by the commissioners. Thereby petitioner acquired the right to “enter, take possession of, and hold said lands, notwithstanding the pendency of the appeal, and until the final judgment rendered on said appeal.” G.S. 40-19; Topping v. Board of Education, 249 N.C. 291, 106 S.E. 2d 502. In accordance with petitioner’s said statutory right, the clerk entered an order “that the petitioner be and it is hereby placed and put into possession of the lands and premises described in the petition.” For procedure in condemnation proceedings instituted by the State Highway Commission, see G.S. 136-103 et seq., and Highway Commission v. Industrial Center, 263 N.C. 230, 139 S.E. 2d 253.

Applying the rule established in Winston-Salem v. Wells, 249 N.C. 148, 105 S.E. 2d 435, respondents were entitled to judgment for $3,500.00 and interest thereon from June 8, 1962, the date petitioner acquired the right to possession. The court was in error in allowing interest from April 2, 1962, the date petitioner instituted this proceeding. Hence, there should be subtracted from the principal of the *160 judgment an amount equal to the interest on $3,500.00 from April 2, 1962, to June 8, 1962. It is ordered that the judgment be and is so modified; and, as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

On respondents’ appeal: No error.

On petitioner’s appeal: Modified and affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

RESPONDENTS’ APPEAL.

Each of respondents’ assignments of error has received careful consideration. Conceding there may be technical error in certain of the court’s rulings with reference to the admissibility of evidence, a careful reading of the evidence fails to show respondents were prejudiced thereby. Upon the entire record, we find no error of such nature as to justify a new trial.

PETITIONER’S APPEAL.

On June 8, 1962, petitioner paid into the office of the clerk of the superior court the sum of $6,975.00, the amount of damages assessed by the commissioners. Thereby petitioner acquired the right to “enter, take possession of, and hold said lands, notwithstanding the pendency of the appeal, and until the final judgment rendered on said appeal.” G.S. 40-19; Topping v. Board of Education, 249 N.C. 291, 106 S.E. 2d 502. In accordance with petitioner’s said statutory right, the clerk entered an order “that the petitioner be and it is hereby placed and put into possession of the lands and premises described in the petition.” For procedure in condemnation proceedings instituted by the State Highway Commission, see G.S. 136-103 et seq., and Highway Commission v. Industrial Center, 263 N.C. 230, 139 S.E. 2d 253.

Applying the rule established in Winston-Salem v. Wells, 249 N.C. 148, 105 S.E. 2d 435, respondents were entitled to judgment for $3,500.00 and interest thereon from June 8, 1962, the date petitioner acquired the right to possession. The court was in error in allowing interest from April 2, 1962, the date petitioner instituted this proceeding. Hence, there should be subtracted from the principal of the *160 judgment an amount equal to the interest on $3,500.00 from April 2, 1962, to June 8, 1962. It is ordered that the judgment be and is so modified; and, as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

On respondents’ appeal: No error.

On petitioner’s appeal: Modified and affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 S.E.2d 16, 268 N.C. 158, 1966 N.C. LEXIS 1149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carolina-power-light-co-v-briggs-nc-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack