Savage v. Norfolk Southern Railroad

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Savage v. Norfolk Southern Railroad

84 S.E. 292, 168 N.C. 241, 1915 N.C. LEXIS 21

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedFebruary 17, 1915

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 84 S.E. 292 (Savage v. Norfolk Southern 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

Savage v. Norfolk Southern Railroad, 84 S.E. 292, 168 N.C. 241, 1915 N.C. LEXIS 21 (N.C. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Clark, C. J.

This is an action to recover damages for ponding water on the land and crops of the plaintiff. The east side of plaintiff’s field drains towards the railroad and into the lateral ditches along its track. Formerly the lead ditch went under the roadbed, but the defendant let this culvert fill up. This turned the water to the south along the railroad and its lateral ditch along the plaintiff’s field has filled up until its bottom is higher than the plaintiff’s ditch. The answer of the defendant contends that the plaintiff’s ditch is too low, and it also pleads the statute of limitations.

There is no question of accelerating or increasing the flow of the water. But it is simply a question of fact as to whether the water has been diverted, and the jury find on the issues that the water was diverted to the damage of the plaintiff, as alleged. The defendant contends that the culvert was filled up when the plaintiff bought the land and that as the defendant had neglected to clean out the culvert for ten years, it was protected by the statute of limitations.

The defendant’s brief properly states that the question raised by this appeal is, “When does the statute of limitations begin to run?” There was evidence that the culvert had been stopped up some ten years. The court charged the jury that the plaintiff was entitled to recover for such damages, if any, done to the plaintiff’s land and crop by the water ponded back by the defendant within three years before action begun. This is not an action for permanent damages from stopping up the *242 ditcb and culvert, but for damages from tbe recurring overflows from time to time, and bis Honor’s instruction was correct. Tbis damage was not caused by “tbe construction of said road or tbe repairs thereto,” and tbe five years statute, Rev., 394 (2), does not apply. Tbis case is substantially like Spilman v. Nav. Co., 74 N. C., 675, and Barcliff v. R. R. (tbe same defendant), 268 post.

No error.

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

Clark, C. J.

This is an action to recover damages for ponding water on the land and crops of the plaintiff. The east side of plaintiff’s field drains towards the railroad and into the lateral ditches along its track. Formerly the lead ditch went under the roadbed, but the defendant let this culvert fill up. This turned the water to the south along the railroad and its lateral ditch along the plaintiff’s field has filled up until its bottom is higher than the plaintiff’s ditch. The answer of the defendant contends that the plaintiff’s ditch is too low, and it also pleads the statute of limitations.

There is no question of accelerating or increasing the flow of the water. But it is simply a question of fact as to whether the water has been diverted, and the jury find on the issues that the water was diverted to the damage of the plaintiff, as alleged. The defendant contends that the culvert was filled up when the plaintiff bought the land and that as the defendant had neglected to clean out the culvert for ten years, it was protected by the statute of limitations.

The defendant’s brief properly states that the question raised by this appeal is, “When does the statute of limitations begin to run?” There was evidence that the culvert had been stopped up some ten years. The court charged the jury that the plaintiff was entitled to recover for such damages, if any, done to the plaintiff’s land and crop by the water ponded back by the defendant within three years before action begun. This is not an action for permanent damages from stopping up the *242 ditcb and culvert, but for damages from tbe recurring overflows from time to time, and bis Honor’s instruction was correct. Tbis damage was not caused by “tbe construction of said road or tbe repairs thereto,” and tbe five years statute, Rev., 394 (2), does not apply. Tbis case is substantially like Spilman v. Nav. Co., 74 N. C., 675, and Barcliff v. R. R. (tbe same defendant), 268 post.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 S.E. 292, 168 N.C. 241, 1915 N.C. LEXIS 21, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/savage-v-norfolk-southern-railroad-nc-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack