{
  "id": 8552410,
  "name": "JAMES T. SPEIGHT and MAGGIE B. SPEIGHT v. ELIJAH H. GRIFFIN and EDITH V. GRIFFIN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Speight v. Griffin",
  "decision_date": "1975-03-19",
  "docket_number": "No. 7418SC899",
  "first_page": "222",
  "last_page": "223",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "25 N.C. App. 222"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "147 S.E. 621",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "year": 1929,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "197 N.C. 37",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626888
      ],
      "year": 1929,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/197/0037-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 238,
    "char_count": 4218,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.56,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20594038494136144
    },
    "sha256": "f6edf609e3f0aab170c53bca11181448042e3caa434940db1a3a74aefa2de927",
    "simhash": "1:f8559630fbfd866f",
    "word_count": 693
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:30:12.075015+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Martin and Arnold concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "JAMES T. SPEIGHT and MAGGIE B. SPEIGHT v. ELIJAH H. GRIFFIN and EDITH V. GRIFFIN"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nWe agree with the trial judge\u2019s conclusion that there was no competent evidence to support a cause of action against defendants for diversion of the natural flow of surface water onto plaintiff\u2019s property.\nIn some respects the case is similar to Sykes v. Sykes, 197 N.C. 37, 147 S.E. 621 (1929), where plaintiff and defendants owned adjoining rural tracts fronting on the highway. The tracts were divided by what was found to be a private road. Defendants\u2019 land was higher than plaintiff\u2019s and water flowed across his land towards defendants\u2019 property until it reached a ditch on defendants\u2019 side of the road. It then flowed down the ditch to the rear of the properties with no damage to plaintiff. Defendants then filled the ditch with dirt. The closing of the ditch caused most of the surface water to flow directly across the road onto plaintiff\u2019s property and resulted in great damage to plaintiff. The court held:\n\u201cIf the ditch was not on a public road, but on defendants\u2019 land, defendants had the right to fill it, and are not liable to plaintiff for damages, if any, caused by filling the ditch. Defendants, as the upper proprietors, had the right, to accelerate and even increase the flow of water from their land to the land of plaintiff, the lower proprietor.\u201d\nIn the case now before us the property is located in an urban residential area. Defendants\u2019 land is higher than plaintiff\u2019s and surface waters naturally flow from defendants\u2019 property to that of plaintiff. Defendants\u2019 old gravel driveway tended to absorb and drain surface waters away from plaintiff\u2019s property. They, as was their right, replaced the gravel driveway with a concrete driveway. That the new concrete driveway does not absorb and drain water away from plaintiff\u2019s lower lot does not give rise to a cause of action against defendants.\nThe judgment from which plaintiff appeals is, in all respects, affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Martin and Arnold concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "VAUGHN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Norman B. Smith for plaintiff appellants.",
      "Pell, Pell & Weston, by Gerald A. Pell and Alston and Hart by E. L. Alston, Jr., attorneys for defendant appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JAMES T. SPEIGHT and MAGGIE B. SPEIGHT v. ELIJAH H. GRIFFIN and EDITH V. GRIFFIN\nNo. 7418SC899\n(Filed 19 March 1975)\nWaters and Watercourses \u00a7 1\u2014 diversion of flow of surface waters \u2014 concrete driveway\nThe evidence was insufficient to support a cause of action against defendants for diversion of the natural flow of surface water onto plaintiff\u2019s property where it tended to show only that the parties are adjoining lot owners, defendants\u2019 property is higher than plaintiff\u2019s, defendants replaced a gravel driveway near the property line of the parties with a concrete driveway, and the concrete driveway does not absorb and drain water away from plaintiff\u2019s lower lot as the gravel driveway did but the water now flows across the driveway and accumulates under plaintiff\u2019s house.\nAppeal by plaintiff, Maggie B. Speight, from Long, Judge. Judgment entered 29 May 1974 in Superior Court, Guilford County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 17 January 1975.\nThis is an action to recover for trespass and diversion of water onto plaintiff\u2019s property.\nPlaintiff and defendants are adjoining lot owners on Willow Road in a subdivision in Guilford County. Defendants\u2019 property is on higher ground that plaintiff\u2019s. Defendants formerly had a gravel driveway which ran from the street towards the rear of the lots and was located near the property line of the parties. There was no problem with water from defendants\u2019 higher lot. The water generally flowed down the gravel driveway to the rear of the lots. Plaintiff has a drainage ditch at the rear of her lot. Plaintiff\u2019s trouble with water from defendants\u2019 lot began after defendants replaced the gravel driveway with a higher concrete driveway. Instead of going down the driveway to the rear of the lot, the water now flows across and seeps under the driveway onto plaintiff\u2019s property causing much water to accumulate under her house.\nThe jury found that defendants diverted the natural flow of surface water onto plaintiff\u2019s property and awarded damages in the amount of $1,000.00.\nThe court then allowed defendants\u2019 motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.\nNorman B. Smith for plaintiff appellants.\nPell, Pell & Weston, by Gerald A. Pell and Alston and Hart by E. L. Alston, Jr., attorneys for defendant appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0222-01",
  "first_page_order": 250,
  "last_page_order": 251
}