{ "id": 8650880, "name": "L. W. HALL et al. v. EMMA TURNER, Administratrix, et al.", "name_abbreviation": "Hall v. Turner", "decision_date": "1892-09", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "180", "last_page": "183", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "111 N.C. 180" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "110 N. C., 292", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11273231 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/110/0292-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 N. C., 368", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8691550 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/81/0368-01" ] }, { "cite": "72 N. C., 496", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8698419 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/72/0496-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 284, "char_count": 4053, "ocr_confidence": 0.572, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.676830387708631e-08, "percentile": 0.35674512297821226 }, "sha256": "e2f40f65e51a773b72daea39f3fa8ce4c26befba90111514c834a2d3fb0533a0", "simhash": "1:a01c24fe0e7cecd3", "word_count": 737 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:01:29.703665+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "L. W. HALL et al. v. EMMA TURNER, Administratrix, et al." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Per Curiam:\nEven had there been a misjoinder of causes of action, it could not have been taken advantage of by demurrer until the defendants had withdrawn their answer. Burns v. Ashworth, 72 N. C., 496; Finley v. Hayes, 81 N. C., 368.\nThe Court correctly ruled that \u201cthe right of the defendant ancestor and intestate Evans Turner was not exhausted by the building of one dam, but that he had the right to keep up and maintain a dam, and, if gecessary to do so, to erect a second dam to the height of nine feet.\u201d\nWe have considered the other exceptions, and they are also without merit. Affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Per Curiam:" } ], "attorneys": [ "Mr. J. W. Graham, for plaintiffs.", "Mr. J. S. Manning, for defendants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "L. W. HALL et al. v. EMMA TURNER, Administratrix, et al.\nContract \u2014 Ponding Water on Land.\nH. agreed with T. that the latter might pond water upon H.\u2019s land by the erection of a dam of prescribed dimensions: Held, that T.\u2019s rights under the contract were not exhausted by the erection of one dam, but he might maintain a dam at that place by the erection of new ones from time to time.\nThis was a civil ACTION, tried before Connor, J., and a jury, at August Term, 1892, of the Superior Court of OraNGE County. (See same case, 110 N. C., 292.)\nWhen this cause was called for trial, the defendants, with leave of the Court, demurred to the complaint, for that the plaintiffs had in their complaint set forth several causes of action, which, under The Code, could not be joined. The defendants did not offer to withdraw their answers heretofore filed. The Court overruled the demurrer, and the defendants duly excepted.\nThere was evidence that defendants had erected two dams at the place agreed upon, one in renewal of the other, the last one having been built in 1872.\nThe testimony being closed, the defendants, in writing, requested the Court to instruct the jury that the plaintiffs alleging that the injury caused to them was by the dam erected under the license given in the contract dated March 13, 1873, and the plaintiffs proving and admitting that the first dam was the one erected under that contract, that plaintiff cannot recover any damage for the injury caused by the second dam, and the jurj^ will not consider that in responding to the second, issue.\nThe Court declined to so instruct the jury, but charged \u201cthat the right of the defendant ancestor and intestate, Evans Turner, under the contract of March 13, 1873, was not exhausted by the building of one dam, but that he had the right to keep up and maintain a dam, and if necessary to do so, to erect a second dam to the height of nine feet. And even if they should find that the first dam was erected by said Turner, and replaced ten or twelve years ago by a new dam, and that said new dam was erected at or about the same place, and pursuant to the agreement, and that said new dam exceeded a uniform height of nine feet, or ponded more water than a dam of nine feet would do, the plaintiffs would be entitled to recover such damages as their land sus-tamed by reason of such excess, and that if they so found, they should answer the second issue, fixing the annual damage.\u201d\nThe defendants excepted to the charge as given.\nJudgment was rendered for plaintiffs, and defendants appealed.\nThe following is the agreement sued upon:\n\u201c Articles of agreement made and entered into this 13th day of March, 1873, between L. W. Hall, of the county of Orange and State of North, Carolina, of the one part, and Evans Turner, of the county and State aforesaid, of the other part, witnesseth, that the said L. W. Hall agrees and consents for the said Evans Turner to back water, if necessary, up into his field, on condition that the said Evans Turner will allow the said L. W. Hall as much woodland along the \"line fence south of the road. Said Turner is allowed to raise a dam eight or nine feet high.\nThis agreement to remain good so long as the said Turner keeps up a mill at the Wagoner place, afterwards to be null and void.\u201d\nWitness ourhands and seals theday and dateabove written.\nL. W. Hall. [Seal.]\nEvaNS Turnee. [Seal.]\nMr. J. W. Graham, for plaintiffs.\nMr. J. S. Manning, for defendants." }, "file_name": "0180-01", "first_page_order": 212, "last_page_order": 215 }