Kneece v. City of Columbia

123 S.E. 100, 128 S.E. 100, 128 S.C. 375, 1924 S.C. LEXIS 232
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedMay 13, 1924
Docket11508
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 123 S.E. 100 (Kneece v. City of Columbia) 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.

Bluebook
Kneece v. City of Columbia, 123 S.E. 100, 128 S.E. 100, 128 S.C. 375, 1924 S.C. LEXIS 232 (S.C. 1924).

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Cothran.

Action for damages on account of the alleged negligent installation and management of an incinerator, whereby the plaintiff’s property had been damaged by reason of the noxious and disagreeable odors consequent upon its operation. From a judgment of $450 in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant has appealed.

The appellant relies upon the following propositions for a reversal of the judgment: (1) That the cause of action stated in the complaint is not maintainable against a municipal corporation, in the absence of a statute authorizing it.

(2) That assuming that the delict complained of constituted a public nuisance, the evidence fails tO' show that the plaintiff has suffered any damages differing in kind from what the general public has suffered.

As to the first proposition: Opposed to the opinion of the writer, the Court has decided to the contrary, in the case of Faust v. Richland County, 117 S. C., 251; 109 S. E., 151, followed by the case of Derrick v. Columbia, 122 S. C., 29; 114 S. E., 857.

As to the second proposition: It is held in the case of Belton v. Wateree Power Co., 123 S. C., 291; 115 S. E., 587, that although the plaintiff may not have suffered damage different in kind as well as in degree, he has a cause of action based upon negligent operation, which the complaint alleges in this case.

The judgment must therefore be affirmed, and it is so ordered.

Messrs. Justice Watts, Fraser and Marion concur. Mr. ChiEE Justice Gary did not participate.

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

Related

Teague v. Cherokee County Memorial Hospital
252 S.E.2d 296 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1979)
Kline v. City of Columbia
155 S.E.2d 597 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1967)
Collins v. CITY OF GREENVILLE, SC
105 S.E.2d 704 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1958)
Gasque v. Town of Conway
8 S.E.2d 871 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1940)
Sherbert v. School Dist. 85, Spartanburg Co.
168 S.E. 391 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1933)
Taylor v. Lexington Water Power Co.
163 S.E. 137 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1932)
Chewning v. Clarendon County
161 S.E. 777 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1931)
Chick Springs Water Co. v. State Highway Department
157 S.E. 842 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1931)
Caldwell v. Carroll
137 S.E. 444 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1927)
Wilson v. City of Laurens
132 S.E. 590 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1926)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
123 S.E. 100, 128 S.E. 100, 128 S.C. 375, 1924 S.C. LEXIS 232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kneece-v-city-of-columbia-sc-1924.