King v. Sanders
This text of 4 S.C.L. 111 (King v. Sanders) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
delivered the opinion of the court. That Black Creek being a navigable stream, it was a nuisance to obstruct the same; and that the defendants were lawfully authorized to remove the obstruction. That it did not appear from the report of the evidence given at the trial, that the defendants might have removed the obstruction by any other means, less injurious to the plaintiffs, than those they employed, even if it were necessary to use that precaution, which the law does not seem to require ; and that it was immaterial how the nuisance came to exist, whether from wilful design, or negligence, or otherwise, as the injury operated to the defendants was the same, whatever might be the cause of the nuisance.
New trial refused.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
4 S.C.L. 111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-sanders-sc-1806.