Daughtry v. . Warren

85 N.C. 136

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: October 5, 1881
• Status: Published

Opinion

RuffiN, J.

The allegations in the bill filed in the case of Eason v. Perkins, 2 Dev. Eq., 38, were in every particular similar to those set forth in the complaint filed in this action, and the findings of the jury in the two'cases in substance identical. In that case it was held that where the right affected is clear or the injury irreparable, the court of equity would interpose to prevent the erection of a nuisance intended for mere personal gratification or individual gain. But inasmuch as private right must always yield to public convenience, when properly compensated for so doing, the courts would never interfere w7hen the object sought was of public benefit, unless the private injury should greatly exceed the benefits to be derived therefrom; and that the erection of a mill being a matter of public utility would not be enjoined merely because it affected the health of a single family or a few individuals. The case itself has been many times expressly cited and approved, and the principle announced still more frequently recognized and applied in other cases, and it must control our decision in this.

There is no special circumstance shown to exist in the plaintiff’s case to make it an exception to the rule, and nothing indeed that must not attend the erection of almost every mill that is built in the country. Pie is not without a remedy for every mischief that can be done him by the defendant’s mill — a remedy that the legislature, said to be “ the. source of the law,” has declared to be adequate. The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

No error. Affirmed.