Messner v. F. S. Royster Guano Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Messner v. F. S. Royster Guano Co.

25 S.E.2d 593, 223 N.C. 855

DecidedMay 19, 1943

StatusPublished

This text of 25 S.E.2d 593 (Messner v. F. S. Royster Guano 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

Messner v. F. S. Royster Guano Co., 25 S.E.2d 593, 223 N.C. 855 (N.C. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

*856 Pee Oukiam.

Plaintiff’s action was bottomed on negligence. Tbe allegation in tbe complaint was that on account of tbe negligent operation of defendant’s plant and of tbe artificial drains for tbe discharge of water, chemical substances giving off offensive odors were caused to flow on plaintiff’s land, lessening its value. Tbe first issue, submitted without objection, and answered in tbe negative, was determinative of tbe cause of action alleged. No issue was tendered as to nuisance. Trespass was not alleged. Plaintiff brought forward in bis assignments of error several exceptions to tbe judge’s charge. From an examination of tbe record we are left with tbe impression that none of tbe exceptions are sufficient to warrant a new trial. On tbe facts, tbe jury has decided against the plaintiff, and tbe result will not be disturbed.

No error.

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

*856 Pee Oukiam.

Plaintiff’s action was bottomed on negligence. Tbe allegation in tbe complaint was that on account of tbe negligent operation of defendant’s plant and of tbe artificial drains for tbe discharge of water, chemical substances giving off offensive odors were caused to flow on plaintiff’s land, lessening its value. Tbe first issue, submitted without objection, and answered in tbe negative, was determinative of tbe cause of action alleged. No issue was tendered as to nuisance. Trespass was not alleged. Plaintiff brought forward in bis assignments of error several exceptions to tbe judge’s charge. From an examination of tbe record we are left with tbe impression that none of tbe exceptions are sufficient to warrant a new trial. On tbe facts, tbe jury has decided against the plaintiff, and tbe result will not be disturbed.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 S.E.2d 593, 223 N.C. 855, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/messner-v-f-s-royster-guano-co-nc-1943.