Ferebee v. . Canal Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Ferebee v. . Canal Co.

41 S.E. 1038, 130 N.C. 741

DecidedFebruary 5, 1902

StatusPublished

This text of 41 S.E. 1038 (Ferebee v. . Canal Co.) 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

Ferebee v. . Canal Co., 41 S.E. 1038, 130 N.C. 741 (N.C. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

(For headnote, see Mullen v. Canal Co., ante, 496.) This is an action to recover damages for alleged injury to the plaintiff's land by the defendant throwing mud, sand and water thereon, and further flooding it by filling up the sweat and lead ditch which was necessary for its proper drainage. This ditch was on the plaintiff's land.

This is one of a series of cases arising out of injuries inflicted upon abutting landowners by the defendant in deepening and widening its canal in 1898 and 1899. It is identical in principle, and practically so in its essential facts, with Mullen v. Canal Co., ante, 496. It is, therefore, unnecessary to repeat the discussion so fully entered into in that *Page 508 case, as we see no error in the conduct of this case or the charge of the court of which the defendant has cause to complain.

Affirmed.

Cited: Pinnix v. Canal Co., 132 N.C. 125.

(742)

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

(For headnote, see Mullen v. Canal Co., ante, 496.) This is an action to recover damages for alleged injury to the plaintiff's land by the defendant throwing mud, sand and water thereon, and further flooding it by filling up the sweat and lead ditch which was necessary for its proper drainage. This ditch was on the plaintiff's land.

This is one of a series of cases arising out of injuries inflicted upon abutting landowners by the defendant in deepening and widening its canal in 1898 and 1899. It is identical in principle, and practically so in its essential facts, with Mullen v. Canal Co., ante, 496. It is, therefore, unnecessary to repeat the discussion so fully entered into in that *Page 508 case, as we see no error in the conduct of this case or the charge of the court of which the defendant has cause to complain.

Affirmed.

Cited: Pinnix v. Canal Co., 132 N.C. 125.

(742)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 S.E. 1038, 130 N.C. 741, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ferebee-v-canal-co-nc-1902.