{
  "id": 11270169,
  "name": "JOANNA V. SPENCE v. THE LAKE DRUMMOND CANAL COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Spence v. Lake Drummond Canal Co.",
  "decision_date": "1909-02-24",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "160",
  "last_page": "161",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "150 N.C. 160"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 201,
    "char_count": 2547,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.47,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.4465114663853504e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3425408199474178
    },
    "sha256": "99bf14882b2a9e7309087e8447d6e2d9f6750d1a100099f1f64a108c7949241a",
    "simhash": "1:e1ea5936df5ebcf1",
    "word_count": 414
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:55:20.077008+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JOANNA V. SPENCE v. THE LAKE DRUMMOND CANAL COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam :\nThe Court is unable to perceive any error in the proceedings below to the defendant\u2019s prejudice. As we understand the evidence, it tended to show that defendant, in cutting a ditch on its own right of way, threw and carried the mud, etc., on the side of the ditch and out and over the plaintiff\u2019s lands, rendering several acres entirely worthless and causing other damage to plaintiff\u2019s property.\nThe court, in charging tbe jury, restricted tbe plaintiff\u2019s recovery to tbe wrong, as indicated, telling them that plaintiff could only recover for wrongfully causing mud, sand and water to flow over on plaintiff\u2019s land and injure it. Tbe defendant did not seriously contend before us that this was not a legitimate subject for recovery, but seemed to object for that plaintiff was allowed to recover as for permanent damages. It may be that the amount recovered in this present case should not be considered and termed permanent damages, but the court only allowed recovery to the extent of the wrong actually inflicted, and the insertion of the word \u201cpermanent\u201d would seem to make for defendant\u2019s benefit, as the effect, if any is allowed, would be to justify a repetition of the act, without further complaint, to the extent that the land has been heretofore covered and destroyed.\nThere is no error to defendant\u2019s prejudice, certainly in the use of the term in the issue, and the judgment below is therefore affirmed.\nNo Error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam :"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Aydlett & Ehringhaus for defendant.",
      "No counsel contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JOANNA V. SPENCE v. THE LAKE DRUMMOND CANAL COMPANY.\n(Filed 24 February, 1909.)\nEvidence \u2014 Damages\u2014Exceptions\u2014Harmless Error.\nDefendant\u2019s exception that under. a certain issue permanent damages were awarded plaintiff, when from the character of the injury, or otherwise, the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages, cannot be to defendant\u2019s prejudice, and it is not reversible error on his appeal.\nActioN tried before Ward,,. J., and a jury, at Fall Term-, 1908, of Camden.\nTbe jury rendered tbe following verdict:\n1. \u201cIs tbe idaintiff tbe owner in fee simple of tbe lands described in tbe complaint?\u201d Answer: \u201cYes.\u201d\n2. \u201cDid defendant dig out and widen its canal and wrongfully throw dirt, sand and mud on plaintiff\u2019s land and thereby permanently injure tbe lands of plaintiff, as alleged?\u201d Answer: \u201cYes.\u201d\n3. \u201cWhat permanent damage, if any, has plaintiff sustained thereby ?\u201d Answer: \u201cThree hundred and fifty dollars.\u201d\nMotion for new trial; overruled. Defendant excepted.\nJudgment on tbe verdict for plaintiff, and defendant excepted and appealed.\nAydlett & Ehringhaus for defendant.\nNo counsel contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0160-01",
  "first_page_order": 204,
  "last_page_order": 205
}