Home/Supreme Court of North Carolina/Raleigh, Charlotte & Southern Railroad v. Mecklenburg Manufacturing Co.

Raleigh, Charlotte & Southern Railroad v. Mecklenburg Manufacturing Co.

82 S.E. 5, 166 N.C. 168, 1914 N.C. LEXIS 363
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedMay 27, 1914
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 82 S.E. 5 (Raleigh, Charlotte & Southern Railroad v. Mecklenburg Manufacturing 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
Raleigh, Charlotte & Southern Railroad v. Mecklenburg Manufacturing Co., 82 S.E. 5, 166 N.C. 168, 1914 N.C. LEXIS 363 (N.C. 1914).

Opinions

plaintiff’s appeal.

Clark, 0. J.

This is the plaintiff’s appeal in the proceeding to condemn a right of way 100 feet wide through the defendant’s mill village located on a 20-acre tract of land near the northeast limits of Charlotte, upon which are the defendant’s cotton mill *170 and other buildings, including 43 tenant houses. Running through -this land is a public highway, which is an extension of a street in Charlotte. At about right angles to this highway are two private streets 50 feet wide extending from north to south entirely across said village. Fronting upon these streets are 34 of the 43 tenant houses composing the village, which are occupied by the mill operatives. The plaintiff’s right of way runs diagonally across the village, intersecting the streets and highway above referred to at grade.

The plaintiff’s exceptions are numerous, but all refer to the evidence and the charge on the measure of damages.

The plaintiff contends that the defendant was entitled as compensation to the value of the land embraced in the right of way, plus any direct actual damages to any part of the remaining land.

The defendant contends that the compensation to which it is entitled is the difference in the value of its entire manufacturing plant and premises, embracing 20 acres, before the right of way was condemned and afterwards, and that this difference in value is to be estimated by taking into consideration that the operation of a steam railroad- would inconvenience and annoy the operatives by the noise, smoke, and inconvenience produced by the trains operating in proximity to their houses; that the dangers and perils to the operatives in going to and from their work would be increased by having to cross said railroad track; that the lives and limbs of the children of the mill operatives will be imperiled by their crossing said track in going to school and while playing near-by; that their parents would be in constant fear, while at work in the mill, lest the children should be run over by the passing trains, and that on account of these conditions the better class of operatives will be driven away and the defendant will be able to secure in their places only inferior help at increased wages, with result of a decrease in the quantity and quality of the mill output and an increase in the cost of production, thereby materially depreciating the market value of the property as a cotton manufacturing plant.

*171

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

Related

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. v. Strickland
640 S.E.2d 856 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2007)
Centre Development Co. v. County of Wilson
261 S.E.2d 275 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1980)
Glace v. Town of Pilot Mountain
143 S.E.2d 78 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1965)
State v. Childress
331 S.W.2d 230 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1959)
DeBruhl v. State Highway & Public Works Commission
102 S.E.2d 229 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1958)
North Carolina State Highway & Public Works Commission v. Black
79 S.E.2d 778 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1954)
Yancey v. North Carolina State Highway & Public Works Commission
19 S.E.2d 489 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1942)
City of Tulsa v. Creekmore
1934 OK 57 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1934)
State v. Suncrest Lumber Co.
154 S.E. 72 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1930)
Town of Selma v. Nobles
111 S.E. 543 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1922)
Incorporated Town of Sallisaw v. Priest
159 P. 1093 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1916)
City of Durham v. Davis
88 S.E. 433 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1916)
Carolina & Yadkin River Railroad v. Armfield
83 S.E. 809 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1914)
R. R. v. . R. R.
81 S.E. 617 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1914)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
82 S.E. 5, 166 N.C. 168, 1914 N.C. LEXIS 363, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raleigh-charlotte-southern-railroad-v-mecklenburg-manufacturing-co-nc-1914.