Parker v. Norfolk & Carolina Railroad

31 S.E. 381, 123 N.C. 71, 1898 N.C. LEXIS 14
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedNovember 1, 1898
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 31 S.E. 381 (Parker v. Norfolk & Carolina Railroad) 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
Parker v. Norfolk & Carolina Railroad, 31 S.E. 381, 123 N.C. 71, 1898 N.C. LEXIS 14 (N.C. 1898).

Opinion

Fairoloth, C. J.:

The jury by their verdict find that the defendant, in constructing its road, wrongfully damaged the plaintiff’s land by diverting the waters of *73 Long Pond and Plat Pocosin, upon said land, without providing an adequate outlet for said waters.

This case to some extent involves the right of the upper and lower tenants in draining land under common law principles. That question was settled in Mizell v. McGowan, 120 N. C., 134, in which it was held that the dominant tenants had the right to carry-off his surface water by cutting ditches, by which the flow of water, naturally flowing therein, is increased and accelerated, and discharged on the land of the ser-vient tenant, and that this subserviency is one of the natural incidents to the ownership of land. The question of diverting water was not then before the Court.

It has been previously held that neither a railroad nor an individual could divert water from its natural course and throw it upon abutting lower lands and cause damage. Jenkins v. Railroad, 110 N. C., 438. It may now he stated that the -upper holder may increase and accelerate the flow of the water in its natural course, but cannot divert other waters to the damage of the lower lands. Carter v. Page, 30 N. C., 190.

The purchase of the right of way by the defendant company could not confer any more privilege than a private individual purchasing the land would have. Jenkins v. Railroad, supra.

There was conflicting evidence as to damages, and whatever we might think as a jury, we as the Court have no control over it.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Davis v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad
42 S.E.2d 905 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1947)
Garmany v. Southern Ry. Co.
149 S.E. 765 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1929)
Hooker v. Norfolk Southern Railroad
72 S.E. 210 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1911)
Davenport v. . R. R.
62 S.E. 431 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1908)
Davenport v. Norfolk & Southern & Suffolk & Carolina Railroad Companies
148 N.C. 287 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1908)
Parks v. Railroad
55 S.E. 701 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1906)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
31 S.E. 381, 123 N.C. 71, 1898 N.C. LEXIS 14, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parker-v-norfolk-carolina-railroad-nc-1898.